Stop complaining about class balance in PvP!

God_flakes · May 2016

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

The additional breach tactic really just doesn't make sense in practice man, just let it go.

False. Dummy breaches work brilliantly. Occupy the potatoes while you focus the real breach.

Let me clarify. Multiple breaches, particularly on the inner, don't work for a single group. I know you've seen how quickly walls get repaired now. I know you're smart enough to understand why it's dumb to send even one, much less multiple people to the other side of the inner to siege from there too.

These tactics work fine when you have multiple raids, or multiple guilds coordinating. But if the meta promotes, or requires multiple groups for objective play, anyone defending that is bananas imo. The tactics frozn repeats over and over only work when backed up by multiple raids of pact militia and the occasional invictus or haxus group. You should not have to play around poorly implemented mechanics by adopting approaches requiring multiple raids, and if you are, those mechanics are problems that need to be addressed.

Though everyone zergs, some of my favorite fights of late have been pushing roebeck with fantasia defending. Our raid against theirs, plus some scattered pugs on both sides. Not our raid, plus saramis, plus guard, plus pugs, against haxus, 2 raids of pact militia, an emp, a small invictus group, red pugs, a yellow group sitting on siege, all fighting over a single keep in terribad ping. "Multiple breaches" means multiple groups and atrocious performance, denying that is silly.

Yes, when you're a small group or only one raid trying to open the inner, it doesn't make sense to open multiple doors. But when a keep is heavily defended and multiple teams are trying to take a keep...sometimes making Swiss cheese of a keep is the only tactic that works. It scatters the defenders. However, as in the case of the Chal defense last week, it didn't work for the AD and EP trying to kick DC out. Mostly because we had a whole, whole lot of DC defending. The large scale fights you're talking about are usually dethrone keeps...and well we all know we're at the mercy of that mechanic. It is what it is. I've come to accept it (until it's changed) and I've given to saying "winners never quit and quitters never win". We may have to fight through the lag and load screens and our keyboard rage -but at the end of the fight if we lose we can at least say we gave it all we had.

Therein lies the problem though. When complaints about siege are brought up, particularly for a single group trying to assault a keep, frozn sweeps in and starts talking about multiple breaches like that's an intelligent answer. The problem is one group against one or more groups plus overtuned siege. How does that one group push in? If the answer is get another group to siege down another inner breach, that's lunacy, and that's the thieves guild patch. I'm talking regular keeps here, not dethrones - so with that as the backdrop, how can one justify this meta, particularly the siege numbers? Bananas I say, b, a n, a, n, a, s, this *** is bananas.

But when an already overpopulated faction is turtling a keep....what else do you propose? Don't say walk away because that's also not viable. That's what they want you to do. And let me add as a caveat, I don't always light up a keep or blast multiple holes in a keep to take it. Often, I do it just to be just as obnoxious as those who are obnoxiously turtling, and to keep it lit up long enough to satisfy another objective.

We're talking about two issues.

One is siege being overtuned. The counter argument for maintaining the status quo is that you should open multiple breaches rather than address the issues with siege. Multiple breaches is fine for dethrones, but in literally every other keep, a system that forces you to bring multiple groups is a broken system. You don't seem to be disagreeing here, so correct me if that's not true.

The second issue is dethrones and an entire alliance turtling a keep. Siege should NOT be an answer. The simple answer is require two keeps to be held to maintain emperor, or require emp faction to maintain both or one of their scrolls. Done.

Now why are we still talking like siege should continue to have silly damage numbers?

Proposing emp need to keep two keeps is an interesting idea. It would certainly spread out the dethrone fight. I can get behind that.

I disagree siege is ovetuned. I think its fine the way it is. I think we have asked them three times now to change it and three times they have changed it. We are looking ridiculous. Overtuned siege is not the root of the problems in ESo. It's like worrying about a headache when you have cancer.

Rohamad_Ali · May 2016

I must have missed a thread or a post here somewhere . I didn't realize the topic was centered around Emperor changes .

zyk · May 2016

Zheg wrote: »

Not a single change in this patch has forced groups to spread out. Not. One. We can disagree on the causes, but it's irrefutable that this patch has resulted in significantly larger numbers of bodies at fights, and fewer keeps being contested at any one time (on average) as they all flock to one or maybe two objectives.

As for why you don't see as many groups, that's because they left. Botched managing by ZOS, a poorly coded and performing game, and the availability of alternatives are the reasons why.

I agree that players aren't spreading out in the sense of occupying a larger portion of the map, but I believe a lower percentage of players are blobbing up. Most fights I'm in are much more free-form. Even against some notable entities that used to blob up.

While some blobs of old adapted to 2.3 by changing builds to survive proxy bombs and siege, others have completely changed how they play. That's not to say they don't stack and bomb like they used to, but they are also very good at coordinating spread out and surviving individually. Even on the losing side, these fights are much more gratifying than fighting the fast moving perma rapids/purge/barrier blobs of old.

But I'm just one dude contributing my limited POV based on my experiences.

Zheg · May 2016

zyk wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Now why are we still talking like siege should continue to have silly damage numbers?

I think it's possible VE collectively has more hate towards siege than the rest of the players combined.

I believe we've reached a point where bombard spammers have claimed 1st place, but left click siege heroes are a close second.

If siege was useless last patch, GoS would not have used it in nearly every engagement, and to great effect. This was during the barrier meta; they would get wipes even with a barrier rotation BECAUSE they used siege, effectively. Siege was useless for the solo player trying to wipe an entire group with a single left click, much the same as it would be useless to cast a single ultimate and expect people to miraculously fall over dead. Use your ultimate in conjunction with other damage, or better yet other players or a group of players, and now you can be successful. This is what used to be required for siege if the goal was death rather than area denial. Coordination and timing.

They buffed the effects because people wanted it to be easy. You're welcome to like the buffed damage. You're welcome to argue that it has had zero effect on causing the increased horde v horde fights we've had for the entirety of this patch, but I would maintain that it has indeed partly caused the horde fights - one of many causes.

frozywozy · May 2016

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

The additional breach tactic really just doesn't make sense in practice man, just let it go.

False. Dummy breaches work brilliantly. Occupy the potatoes while you focus the real breach.

Let me clarify. Multiple breaches, particularly on the inner, don't work for a single group. I know you've seen how quickly walls get repaired now. I know you're smart enough to understand why it's dumb to send even one, much less multiple people to the other side of the inner to siege from there too.

These tactics work fine when you have multiple raids, or multiple guilds coordinating. But if the meta promotes, or requires multiple groups for objective play, anyone defending that is bananas imo. The tactics frozn repeats over and over only work when backed up by multiple raids of pact militia and the occasional invictus or haxus group. You should not have to play around poorly implemented mechanics by adopting approaches requiring multiple raids, and if you are, those mechanics are problems that need to be addressed.

Though everyone zergs, some of my favorite fights of late have been pushing roebeck with fantasia defending. Our raid against theirs, plus some scattered pugs on both sides. Not our raid, plus saramis, plus guard, plus pugs, against haxus, 2 raids of pact militia, an emp, a small invictus group, red pugs, a yellow group sitting on siege, all fighting over a single keep in terribad ping. "Multiple breaches" means multiple groups and atrocious performance, denying that is silly.

Let's describe in details the definition of a well defended keep. A well defended keep usually got there for two different reasons :

1) The keep targeted has not been scouted properly and siege was initiated even though there were already multiple defenders present.

2) Siege was not setup properly and took too much time before reinforcements arrives after the "flag" appeared.

Now what you're saying is that one well coordinated group/guild only should be able to take down a well defended keep without any problems. I am sorry. This is not how AvAvA works. You should need more than one group to get it down. The best situation would be to have small skirmish groups (like mine) to hold every entrance in the inner courtyard. Another skirmish group to take down an additionnal breach and a medium group of 16 elite players to get inside and flip the flags.

If the situation get out of control where too many defenders found a way to get inside, you failed. Move away and try to hit where the enemy doesn't expect you to be.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

The additional breach tactic really just doesn't make sense in practice man, just let it go.

Could you elaborate on how it doesn't make any sense in practice instead of throwing poor arguments and troll attempts? I've done it several times in the past when trying to dethrone.

Opening an additional breach force defenders to spread their forces inside, it also creates a better opening with offensive sieges, it makes it easier to cover the whole courtyard, it prevents enemies from dropping forward camps inside the perimeter and finally, it helps to covers all the entrances and make sure that reinforcements can't make it inside alive.

Anything better to say than "this thread got frozn'd" or "let it go" ?

If you are just zerging it down sure, but with the stupid change made to repairing walls and how easy it is for a zerg to close a breach, in literally seconds, its a pointless to try several breaches.

Then the problem is not the siege mechanics but the repair mechanics. It's like complaining about the prox det nerfs and saying that MagDK need that burst to be viable. It is a class problem as a whole and should have nothing to do with prox det.

Zheg · May 2016

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

The additional breach tactic really just doesn't make sense in practice man, just let it go.

False. Dummy breaches work brilliantly. Occupy the potatoes while you focus the real breach.

Let me clarify. Multiple breaches, particularly on the inner, don't work for a single group. I know you've seen how quickly walls get repaired now. I know you're smart enough to understand why it's dumb to send even one, much less multiple people to the other side of the inner to siege from there too.

These tactics work fine when you have multiple raids, or multiple guilds coordinating. But if the meta promotes, or requires multiple groups for objective play, anyone defending that is bananas imo. The tactics frozn repeats over and over only work when backed up by multiple raids of pact militia and the occasional invictus or haxus group. You should not have to play around poorly implemented mechanics by adopting approaches requiring multiple raids, and if you are, those mechanics are problems that need to be addressed.

Though everyone zergs, some of my favorite fights of late have been pushing roebeck with fantasia defending. Our raid against theirs, plus some scattered pugs on both sides. Not our raid, plus saramis, plus guard, plus pugs, against haxus, 2 raids of pact militia, an emp, a small invictus group, red pugs, a yellow group sitting on siege, all fighting over a single keep in terribad ping. "Multiple breaches" means multiple groups and atrocious performance, denying that is silly.

Let's describe in details the definition of a well defended keep. A well defended keep usually got there for two different reasons :

1) The keep targeted has not been scouted properly and siege was initiated even though there were already multiple defenders present.

2) Siege was not setup properly and took too much time before reinforcements arrives after the "flag" appeared.

Now what you're saying is that one well coordinated group/guild only should be able to take down a well defended keep without any problems. I am sorry. This is not how AvAvA works. You should need more than one group to get it down. The best situation would be to have small skirmish groups (like mine) to hold every entrance in the inner courtyard. Another skirmish group to take down an additionnal breach and a medium group of 16 elite players to get inside and flip the flags.

If the situation get out of control where too many defenders found a way to get inside, you failed. Move away and try to hit where the enemy doesn't expect you to be.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

The additional breach tactic really just doesn't make sense in practice man, just let it go.

Could you elaborate on how it doesn't make any sense in practice instead of throwing poor arguments and troll attempts? I've done it several times in the past when trying to dethrone.

Opening an additional breach force defenders to spread their forces inside, it also creates a better opening with offensive sieges, it makes it easier to cover the whole courtyard, it prevents enemies from dropping forward camps inside the perimeter and finally, it helps to covers all the entrances and make sure that reinforcements can't make it inside alive.

Anything better to say than "this thread got frozn'd" or "let it go" ?

If you are just zerging it down sure, but with the stupid change made to repairing walls and how easy it is for a zerg to close a breach, in literally seconds, its a pointless to try several breaches.

Then the problem is not the siege mechanics but the repair mechanics. It's like complaining about the prox det nerfs and saying that MagDK need that burst to be viable. It is a class problem as a whole and should have nothing to do with prox det.

You think keeps should require more than one large group to take, I disagree; I think that should be the baseline for balancing.

In no way am I saying that one group should always be successful, but if they can't push through the one breach they can open by themselves, THAT is the problem. Fighting on flags/up top is one thing, not being able to run inside the breach because of overtuned siege, nerfs to mitigation, and crippled mobility - this is what needs addressing. We'll see what happens with the mist form and momentum changes, they should help. But responding to these issues centered on one group by saying 'multiple breaches' is why you get mocked, it's a nonsensical strategy for one group.

manny254 · May 2016

zyk wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

The best counter is multiple breaches, but there is a huge problem with that idea. That tactic only really works if you outnumber the opponent. The core problem with siege is that it will always favor the larger numbers. Personally I do not want to win a battle because I outnumber the opponent.

Regardless of the numbers present, more breaches create more offensive options and are more difficult to defend. I also disagree that siege inherently favors the side with greater numbers.

In general, I think players are too preoccupied with numbers in Cyrodiil. RvR isn't supposed to have a primary focus on individual skills. In a game intended to have strategic elements, outnumbering an opponent in one location is a valid strategy. The cost to that should be vulnerability elsewhere.

The problem is that in an AP obsessed metagame like 2.3, no one will leave a large dtick quagmire. There is no incentive to attack an opponent stacked at one location elsewhere because: 1. no one will bother defending, so it will be pvdoor; 2. poor rewards.

The focus of this game needs to be winning objectives and campaigns. Not constantly trying to demonstrate how awesome our individual or group skills are by fighting outnumbered.

or the objective should be to have fun?

Is it so wrong that I prefer enjoyable fights? Objective game play is ultimately two different situations. The first is being heavily outnumbered. The second is heavily outnumbering your opponent. This essentially means frustration and boredom. If objectives/winning where all that mattered each faction would pick a server to dominate, and no one would actually pvp. Cyrodiil would be each faction gate camping on different servers.

I have probably taken/defended more objectives than any active US AD player, and I simply do not enjoy it. Contrary to popular belief I will help take objectives, but i prefer not to participate in the laggy mess of most keep fights.

Siege by far benefits the greater numbers. You need players to operate siege and actually fight. A huge zerg can sacrifice multiple players to siege, but a small group can not always do this.

frozywozy · May 2016

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Anything better to say than "this thread got frozn'd" or "let it go" ?

Let's be honest, the amount of critical thinking you put into your "poke more holes" strategy doesn't really warrant more response than that.

Ve members are pretty much the only ones in these forums who are constantly arrogant to me no matter how politely I can write my statements and how careful I am when addressing any player in particular. The content I present may not be correct, it doesn't change the fact that the replies should be expressed with manners and maturity as much as I do. Otherwise, it just means that you would rather insult, troll or make fun of me, instead of bring strong and solid arguments to counter my points.

For multiple breaches to be at all meaningful, the attacker needs to outnumber the defenders drastically in order to be able to set up, maintain and defend siege on multiple sides of the keep.

I don't believe that we need to have more people attacking to be able to realize this.

The attacking force is forced to split over a larger distance around the outside of the keep than the defending force is forced to on the inside. The defenders can choose to sally from their walls as a single group to overwhelm and wipe any portion of the fragmented attackers outside, before repairing the breach in seconds and repeating on the next side of the keep. This is how it works when you have even numbers on both sides.

Firstly, If an organized group decides to push outside of the inner, they expose themselves to heavy sieges as much as people trying to get in. So in this scenario, your argument saying that siege is overtuned and block you from getting in is as valid to a group trying to get out. Secondly, any experienced player can easily keep a breach flagged if he is dedicated on it. I don't have to tell you how to do it.

Even when you have multiple breaches, you only go in through one unless you're just dumb.

If you use your own sieges properly, you can entirely annihilate oils on top of the catwalk with firetrebs / stone cold fire trebs on one side and move in the least defended breach. It forces the enemy defensive forces to spread out and step their gameplay more than if only one breach would be brought down.

Putting multiple breaches in a keep doesn't stop defenders from putting FCs, FCs literally only need to be free for 2 seconds for a raid to rez up. The only time defenders can't put down FCs is when they are being zergged to hell.

I agree and have stated my opinion in the past regarding the use of forward camps. I don't think we should be able to deploy them around keeps. They should be used open field only. This being said, my point was that having people sieging both breaches on both sides HELPS a ton to control the areas where people can deploy them.

Dyride · May 2016

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

How did that work out for y'all Saturday? http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263435/epic-battle-at-the-chalamo-4-30-2016/p1

frozywozy · May 2016

Dyride wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

How did that work out for y'all Saturday? http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263435/epic-battle-at-the-chalamo-4-30-2016/p1

I logged off and rage quitted on Saturday night. Something that I rarely do with the level of patience I have. I did not log because we could not win the Chalman fight, no matter what happened in the end. I logged off because no matter the amount of times I tried to bring the fight somewhere else on the map, constantly encouraging EP group leaders and zone chat to do so, I usually got out numbered no matter where I went (because the whole EP population was stacked at Chalman) and dealing with the lag while being outnumbered got me killed repeatedly.

I logged off early and went to play another game.

Armitas · May 2016

Keeps have a limit to how much siege you can place there. I wonder if the keeps could be made smart enough to scale that cap down based on the number of offense and defense within the area.

HoloYoitsu · May 2016

Armitas wrote: »

Keeps have a limit to how much siege you can place there. I wonder if ZOS could be made smart enough to scale that cap down based on the number of offense and defense within the area.

Fix'd.

God_flakes · May 2016

manny254 wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

The best counter is multiple breaches, but there is a huge problem with that idea. That tactic only really works if you outnumber the opponent. The core problem with siege is that it will always favor the larger numbers. Personally I do not want to win a battle because I outnumber the opponent.

Regardless of the numbers present, more breaches create more offensive options and are more difficult to defend. I also disagree that siege inherently favors the side with greater numbers.

In general, I think players are too preoccupied with numbers in Cyrodiil. RvR isn't supposed to have a primary focus on individual skills. In a game intended to have strategic elements, outnumbering an opponent in one location is a valid strategy. The cost to that should be vulnerability elsewhere.

The problem is that in an AP obsessed metagame like 2.3, no one will leave a large dtick quagmire. There is no incentive to attack an opponent stacked at one location elsewhere because: 1. no one will bother defending, so it will be pvdoor; 2. poor rewards.

The focus of this game needs to be winning objectives and campaigns. Not constantly trying to demonstrate how awesome our individual or group skills are by fighting outnumbered.

or the objective should be to have fun?

Is it so wrong that I prefer enjoyable fights? Objective game play is ultimately two different situations. The first is being heavily outnumbered. The second is heavily outnumbering your opponent. This essentially means frustration and boredom. If objectives/winning where all that mattered each faction would pick a server to dominate, and no one would actually pvp. Cyrodiil would be each faction gate camping on different servers.

I have probably taken/defended more objectives than any active US AD player, and I simply do not enjoy it. Contrary to popular belief I will help take objectives, but i prefer not to participate in the laggy mess of most keep fights.

Siege by far benefits the greater numbers. You need players to operate siege and actually fight. A huge zerg can sacrifice multiple players to siege, but a small group can not always do this.

But the name of the game IS objective focused. If we all just threw our hands up and refused to play the game as it is designed...what is the point of playing?? What is the point of tactics and strategy and trying to outwit and undermine enemies? This is an MMO, for crying out loud. It's SUPPOSED to be large group play and battles over objectives and keeps. This isn't COD. Why do people insist on trying to make this game all small warfare, onesies and twosies??? To me THAT is boring.

God_flakes · May 2016

frozywozy wrote: »

Dyride wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

How did that work out for y'all Saturday? http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263435/epic-battle-at-the-chalamo-4-30-2016/p1

I logged off and rage quitted on Saturday night. Something that I rarely do with the level of patience I have. I did not log because we could not win the Chalman fight, no matter what happened in the end. I logged off because no matter the amount of times I tried to bring the fight somewhere else on the map, constantly encouraging EP group leaders and zone chat to do so, I usually got out numbered no matter where I went (because the whole EP population was stacked at Chalman) and dealing with the lag while being outnumbered got me killed repeatedly.

I logged off early and went to play another game.

EP wanted to rob of us our honorably earned AP, that's why they wouldn't walk away. It's as simple as that.

Dyride, multiple breaches didn't work at that fight because we were on our A game, we were prepared for it. I will reiterate, swissing usually only works when you ninja it.

Satiar · May 2016

God_flakes wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Dyride wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

How did that work out for y'all Saturday? http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263435/epic-battle-at-the-chalamo-4-30-2016/p1

I logged off and rage quitted on Saturday night. Something that I rarely do with the level of patience I have. I did not log because we could not win the Chalman fight, no matter what happened in the end. I logged off because no matter the amount of times I tried to bring the fight somewhere else on the map, constantly encouraging EP group leaders and zone chat to do so, I usually got out numbered no matter where I went (because the whole EP population was stacked at Chalman) and dealing with the lag while being outnumbered got me killed repeatedly.

I logged off early and went to play another game.

EP wanted to rob of us our honorably earned AP, that's why they wouldn't walk away. It's as simple as that.

Dyride, multiple breaches didn't work at that fight because we were on our A game, we were prepared for it. I will reiterate, swissing usually only works when you ninja it.

Multiple breaches work when you outnumber the enemy, pure and simple. That's literally the long and short of it. The entire point of doing it is to spread the enemy out, and doing so is unsustainable unless you have a large number of people available to pressure those separate areas.

This is why Swiss Cheesing Inners works so well on emp takes. You typically outnumber the defenders and can attack all sides until you find the weak spot. I guarantee you, it won't work if the defenders are organized and have similar numbers, as we saw at the Chalamo. Defending a keep against anything but overwhelming numbers is trivial this patch.

manny254 · May 2016

God_flakes wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

The best counter is multiple breaches, but there is a huge problem with that idea. That tactic only really works if you outnumber the opponent. The core problem with siege is that it will always favor the larger numbers. Personally I do not want to win a battle because I outnumber the opponent.

Regardless of the numbers present, more breaches create more offensive options and are more difficult to defend. I also disagree that siege inherently favors the side with greater numbers.

In general, I think players are too preoccupied with numbers in Cyrodiil. RvR isn't supposed to have a primary focus on individual skills. In a game intended to have strategic elements, outnumbering an opponent in one location is a valid strategy. The cost to that should be vulnerability elsewhere.

The problem is that in an AP obsessed metagame like 2.3, no one will leave a large dtick quagmire. There is no incentive to attack an opponent stacked at one location elsewhere because: 1. no one will bother defending, so it will be pvdoor; 2. poor rewards.

The focus of this game needs to be winning objectives and campaigns. Not constantly trying to demonstrate how awesome our individual or group skills are by fighting outnumbered.

or the objective should be to have fun?

Is it so wrong that I prefer enjoyable fights? Objective game play is ultimately two different situations. The first is being heavily outnumbered. The second is heavily outnumbering your opponent. This essentially means frustration and boredom. If objectives/winning where all that mattered each faction would pick a server to dominate, and no one would actually pvp. Cyrodiil would be each faction gate camping on different servers.

I have probably taken/defended more objectives than any active US AD player, and I simply do not enjoy it. Contrary to popular belief I will help take objectives, but i prefer not to participate in the laggy mess of most keep fights.

Siege by far benefits the greater numbers. You need players to operate siege and actually fight. A huge zerg can sacrifice multiple players to siege, but a small group can not always do this.

But the name of the game IS objective focused. If we all just threw our hands up and refused to play the game as it is designed...what is the point of playing?? What is the point of tactics and strategy and trying to outwit and undermine enemies? This is an MMO, for crying out loud. It's SUPPOSED to be large group play and battles over objectives and keeps. This isn't COD. Why do people insist on trying to make this game all small warfare, onesies and twosies??? To me THAT is boring.

So the game is designed to be played at 1,000+ ping?

I did not insist that the game be made that way, but there should be a place for everyone to fight. Every night I have ran a group we spend the first 1-2 hours making sure AD has some keeps. Beyond that I will play to have fun. I will help if i see a good opportunity, but i prefer not to participate in the lag.

Frankly I do not buy any of the bs about winning campaigns/objectives. I have yet to see anyone try to win the ideal way.

Here is a quick guide to winning a campaign.

1. Loose both your scrolls. Let the other factions fight over these useless objectives.
2. Try to secure/defend your home keeps.
3. Gather a raid of 24
4. Split the group into pairs,
5. Send each group to a different resource. Ideally the tri keeps of the winning factions.
6. 1-2mins before the score eval cap the 12 resources.
7. Defend home keeps, and repeat steps 3-6.

That is the ideal way to win a campaign.

Satiar · May 2016

manny254 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

The best counter is multiple breaches, but there is a huge problem with that idea. That tactic only really works if you outnumber the opponent. The core problem with siege is that it will always favor the larger numbers. Personally I do not want to win a battle because I outnumber the opponent.

Regardless of the numbers present, more breaches create more offensive options and are more difficult to defend. I also disagree that siege inherently favors the side with greater numbers.

In general, I think players are too preoccupied with numbers in Cyrodiil. RvR isn't supposed to have a primary focus on individual skills. In a game intended to have strategic elements, outnumbering an opponent in one location is a valid strategy. The cost to that should be vulnerability elsewhere.

The problem is that in an AP obsessed metagame like 2.3, no one will leave a large dtick quagmire. There is no incentive to attack an opponent stacked at one location elsewhere because: 1. no one will bother defending, so it will be pvdoor; 2. poor rewards.

The focus of this game needs to be winning objectives and campaigns. Not constantly trying to demonstrate how awesome our individual or group skills are by fighting outnumbered.

or the objective should be to have fun?

Is it so wrong that I prefer enjoyable fights? Objective game play is ultimately two different situations. The first is being heavily outnumbered. The second is heavily outnumbering your opponent. This essentially means frustration and boredom. If objectives/winning where all that mattered each faction would pick a server to dominate, and no one would actually pvp. Cyrodiil would be each faction gate camping on different servers.

I have probably taken/defended more objectives than any active US AD player, and I simply do not enjoy it. Contrary to popular belief I will help take objectives, but i prefer not to participate in the laggy mess of most keep fights.

Siege by far benefits the greater numbers. You need players to operate siege and actually fight. A huge zerg can sacrifice multiple players to siege, but a small group can not always do this.

But the name of the game IS objective focused. If we all just threw our hands up and refused to play the game as it is designed...what is the point of playing?? What is the point of tactics and strategy and trying to outwit and undermine enemies? This is an MMO, for crying out loud. It's SUPPOSED to be large group play and battles over objectives and keeps. This isn't COD. Why do people insist on trying to make this game all small warfare, onesies and twosies??? To me THAT is boring.

So the game is designed to be played at 1,000+ ping?

I did not insist that the game be made that way, but there should be a place for everyone to fight. Every night I have ran a group we spend the first 1-2 hours making sure AD has some keeps. Beyond that I will play to have fun. I will help if i see a good opportunity, but i prefer not to participate in the lag.

Frankly I do not buy any of the bs about winning campaigns/objectives. I have yet to see anyone try to win the ideal way.

Here is a quick guide to winning a campaign.

1. Loose both your scrolls. Let the other factions fight over these useless objectives.
2. Try to secure/defend your home keeps.
3. Gather a raid of 24
4. Split the group into pairs,
5. Send each group to a different resource. Ideally the tri keeps of the winning factions.
6. 1-2mins before the score eval cap the 12 resources.
7. Defend home keeps, and repeat steps 3-6.

That is the ideal way to win a campaign.

Ehhhhh...

Honestly it just seems like AD is scared of red at this point. Most nights I log on and AD has tri keeps and I have 60-70 EP pushing from Aleswell to Glade because they are safe in the knowledge that AD will not push them. Sure enough, later on in the evening when in pushing to dethrone, AD will conveniently avoid pushing red and will begin attaching DC-held nickel/brindle. I have, on multiple occasions, taken Alessia and left it unrepaired specifically so that AD will take a freaking keep and put pressure on the Sej corridor

Essentially, by not engaging in making the campaign competitive AD helps make it a lag fest. If EP doesn't have to worry about AD it will ALWAYS become faction vs faction slug fest because no one is pressuring them to be anywhere else.

You want less laggy fights? Pressure the map. Yesterday was hilarious, EP owned most of the map and had a Zerg at Glade, and the only AD group capable of pushing to get AD keeps back decides to come up to Glade to join in the lag fest. That will never split up the Zerg.

Ishammael · May 2016

CAN HAS GND OILZ?

God_flakes · May 2016

Satiar wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Dyride wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

How did that work out for y'all Saturday? http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263435/epic-battle-at-the-chalamo-4-30-2016/p1

I logged off and rage quitted on Saturday night. Something that I rarely do with the level of patience I have. I did not log because we could not win the Chalman fight, no matter what happened in the end. I logged off because no matter the amount of times I tried to bring the fight somewhere else on the map, constantly encouraging EP group leaders and zone chat to do so, I usually got out numbered no matter where I went (because the whole EP population was stacked at Chalman) and dealing with the lag while being outnumbered got me killed repeatedly.

I logged off early and went to play another game.

EP wanted to rob of us our honorably earned AP, that's why they wouldn't walk away. It's as simple as that.

Dyride, multiple breaches didn't work at that fight because we were on our A game, we were prepared for it. I will reiterate, swissing usually only works when you ninja it.

Multiple breaches work when you outnumber the enemy, pure and simple. That's literally the long and short of it. The entire point of doing it is to spread the enemy out, and doing so is unsustainable unless you have a large number of people available to pressure those separate areas.

This is why Swiss Cheesing Inners works so well on emp takes. You typically outnumber the defenders and can attack all sides until you find the weak spot. I guarantee you, it won't work if the defenders are organized and have similar numbers, as we saw at the Chalamo. Defending a keep against anything but overwhelming numbers is trivial this patch.

I was there for the entire Chal defense. (In fact I led the charge to hold and defend it even when people in zone were demanding we leave!!!) I assure you we did NOT outnumber the attackers the entire time. In fact, at one point half left to go back cap glade and ales, leaving only a handful of us defending. The attackers attempted multiple breaches and we held them off long enough for reinforcements (at which point we seemed to be even in numbers with the attackers).

Satiar · May 2016

God_flakes wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Dyride wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

How did that work out for y'all Saturday? http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263435/epic-battle-at-the-chalamo-4-30-2016/p1

I logged off and rage quitted on Saturday night. Something that I rarely do with the level of patience I have. I did not log because we could not win the Chalman fight, no matter what happened in the end. I logged off because no matter the amount of times I tried to bring the fight somewhere else on the map, constantly encouraging EP group leaders and zone chat to do so, I usually got out numbered no matter where I went (because the whole EP population was stacked at Chalman) and dealing with the lag while being outnumbered got me killed repeatedly.

I logged off early and went to play another game.

EP wanted to rob of us our honorably earned AP, that's why they wouldn't walk away. It's as simple as that.

Dyride, multiple breaches didn't work at that fight because we were on our A game, we were prepared for it. I will reiterate, swissing usually only works when you ninja it.

Multiple breaches work when you outnumber the enemy, pure and simple. That's literally the long and short of it. The entire point of doing it is to spread the enemy out, and doing so is unsustainable unless you have a large number of people available to pressure those separate areas.

This is why Swiss Cheesing Inners works so well on emp takes. You typically outnumber the defenders and can attack all sides until you find the weak spot. I guarantee you, it won't work if the defenders are organized and have similar numbers, as we saw at the Chalamo. Defending a keep against anything but overwhelming numbers is trivial this patch.

I was there for the entire Chal defense. (In fact I led the charge to hold and defend it even when people in zone were demanding we leave!!!) I assure you we did NOT outnumber the attackers the entire time. In fact, at one point half left to go back cap glade and ales, leaving only a handful of us defending. The attackers attempted multiple breaches and we held them off long enough for reinforcements (at which point we seemed to be even in numbers with the attackers).

You had a Guard raid in there and 20 VE, and than pugs. The only way that keep is lost is if we all monumentally *** up. There was a lot of them but also a lot of us, enough that even taking down all inner walls/doors couldn't spread out our defense.

God_flakes · May 2016

manny254 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

The best counter is multiple breaches, but there is a huge problem with that idea. That tactic only really works if you outnumber the opponent. The core problem with siege is that it will always favor the larger numbers. Personally I do not want to win a battle because I outnumber the opponent.

Regardless of the numbers present, more breaches create more offensive options and are more difficult to defend. I also disagree that siege inherently favors the side with greater numbers.

In general, I think players are too preoccupied with numbers in Cyrodiil. RvR isn't supposed to have a primary focus on individual skills. In a game intended to have strategic elements, outnumbering an opponent in one location is a valid strategy. The cost to that should be vulnerability elsewhere.

The problem is that in an AP obsessed metagame like 2.3, no one will leave a large dtick quagmire. There is no incentive to attack an opponent stacked at one location elsewhere because: 1. no one will bother defending, so it will be pvdoor; 2. poor rewards.

The focus of this game needs to be winning objectives and campaigns. Not constantly trying to demonstrate how awesome our individual or group skills are by fighting outnumbered.

or the objective should be to have fun?

Is it so wrong that I prefer enjoyable fights? Objective game play is ultimately two different situations. The first is being heavily outnumbered. The second is heavily outnumbering your opponent. This essentially means frustration and boredom. If objectives/winning where all that mattered each faction would pick a server to dominate, and no one would actually pvp. Cyrodiil would be each faction gate camping on different servers.

I have probably taken/defended more objectives than any active US AD player, and I simply do not enjoy it. Contrary to popular belief I will help take objectives, but i prefer not to participate in the laggy mess of most keep fights.

Siege by far benefits the greater numbers. You need players to operate siege and actually fight. A huge zerg can sacrifice multiple players to siege, but a small group can not always do this.

But the name of the game IS objective focused. If we all just threw our hands up and refused to play the game as it is designed...what is the point of playing?? What is the point of tactics and strategy and trying to outwit and undermine enemies? This is an MMO, for crying out loud. It's SUPPOSED to be large group play and battles over objectives and keeps. This isn't COD. Why do people insist on trying to make this game all small warfare, onesies and twosies??? To me THAT is boring.

So the game is designed to be played at 1,000+ ping?

I did not insist that the game be made that way, but there should be a place for everyone to fight. Every night I have ran a group we spend the first 1-2 hours making sure AD has some keeps. Beyond that I will play to have fun. I will help if i see a good opportunity, but i prefer not to participate in the lag.

Frankly I do not buy any of the bs about winning campaigns/objectives. I have yet to see anyone try to win the ideal way.

Here is a quick guide to winning a campaign.

1. Loose both your scrolls. Let the other factions fight over these useless objectives.
2. Try to secure/defend your home keeps.
3. Gather a raid of 24
4. Split the group into pairs,
5. Send each group to a different resource. Ideally the tri keeps of the winning factions.
6. 1-2mins before the score eval cap the 12 resources.
7. Defend home keeps, and repeat steps 3-6.

That is the ideal way to win a campaign.

You're welcome to come to TF, Mojican, and show us how that's done.

Minno · May 2016

God_flakes wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

The best counter is multiple breaches, but there is a huge problem with that idea. That tactic only really works if you outnumber the opponent. The core problem with siege is that it will always favor the larger numbers. Personally I do not want to win a battle because I outnumber the opponent.

Regardless of the numbers present, more breaches create more offensive options and are more difficult to defend. I also disagree that siege inherently favors the side with greater numbers.

In general, I think players are too preoccupied with numbers in Cyrodiil. RvR isn't supposed to have a primary focus on individual skills. In a game intended to have strategic elements, outnumbering an opponent in one location is a valid strategy. The cost to that should be vulnerability elsewhere.

The problem is that in an AP obsessed metagame like 2.3, no one will leave a large dtick quagmire. There is no incentive to attack an opponent stacked at one location elsewhere because: 1. no one will bother defending, so it will be pvdoor; 2. poor rewards.

The focus of this game needs to be winning objectives and campaigns. Not constantly trying to demonstrate how awesome our individual or group skills are by fighting outnumbered.

or the objective should be to have fun?

Is it so wrong that I prefer enjoyable fights? Objective game play is ultimately two different situations. The first is being heavily outnumbered. The second is heavily outnumbering your opponent. This essentially means frustration and boredom. If objectives/winning where all that mattered each faction would pick a server to dominate, and no one would actually pvp. Cyrodiil would be each faction gate camping on different servers.

I have probably taken/defended more objectives than any active US AD player, and I simply do not enjoy it. Contrary to popular belief I will help take objectives, but i prefer not to participate in the laggy mess of most keep fights.

Siege by far benefits the greater numbers. You need players to operate siege and actually fight. A huge zerg can sacrifice multiple players to siege, but a small group can not always do this.

But the name of the game IS objective focused. If we all just threw our hands up and refused to play the game as it is designed...what is the point of playing?? What is the point of tactics and strategy and trying to outwit and undermine enemies? This is an MMO, for crying out loud. It's SUPPOSED to be large group play and battles over objectives and keeps. This isn't COD. Why do people insist on trying to make this game all small warfare, onesies and twosies??? To me THAT is boring.

So the game is designed to be played at 1,000+ ping?

I did not insist that the game be made that way, but there should be a place for everyone to fight. Every night I have ran a group we spend the first 1-2 hours making sure AD has some keeps. Beyond that I will play to have fun. I will help if i see a good opportunity, but i prefer not to participate in the lag.

Frankly I do not buy any of the bs about winning campaigns/objectives. I have yet to see anyone try to win the ideal way.

Here is a quick guide to winning a campaign.

1. Loose both your scrolls. Let the other factions fight over these useless objectives.
2. Try to secure/defend your home keeps.
3. Gather a raid of 24
4. Split the group into pairs,
5. Send each group to a different resource. Ideally the tri keeps of the winning factions.
6. 1-2mins before the score eval cap the 12 resources.
7. Defend home keeps, and repeat steps 3-6.

That is the ideal way to win a campaign.

You're welcome to come to TF, Mojican, and show us how that's done.

He was on last night, hitting BRK resources.
I know because I died to his merry band of yellow miscreants many a times.

God_flakes · May 2016

Satiar wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Dyride wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

How did that work out for y'all Saturday? http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263435/epic-battle-at-the-chalamo-4-30-2016/p1

I logged off and rage quitted on Saturday night. Something that I rarely do with the level of patience I have. I did not log because we could not win the Chalman fight, no matter what happened in the end. I logged off because no matter the amount of times I tried to bring the fight somewhere else on the map, constantly encouraging EP group leaders and zone chat to do so, I usually got out numbered no matter where I went (because the whole EP population was stacked at Chalman) and dealing with the lag while being outnumbered got me killed repeatedly.

I logged off early and went to play another game.

EP wanted to rob of us our honorably earned AP, that's why they wouldn't walk away. It's as simple as that.

Dyride, multiple breaches didn't work at that fight because we were on our A game, we were prepared for it. I will reiterate, swissing usually only works when you ninja it.

Multiple breaches work when you outnumber the enemy, pure and simple. That's literally the long and short of it. The entire point of doing it is to spread the enemy out, and doing so is unsustainable unless you have a large number of people available to pressure those separate areas.

This is why Swiss Cheesing Inners works so well on emp takes. You typically outnumber the defenders and can attack all sides until you find the weak spot. I guarantee you, it won't work if the defenders are organized and have similar numbers, as we saw at the Chalamo. Defending a keep against anything but overwhelming numbers is trivial this patch.

I was there for the entire Chal defense. (In fact I led the charge to hold and defend it even when people in zone were demanding we leave!!!) I assure you we did NOT outnumber the attackers the entire time. In fact, at one point half left to go back cap glade and ales, leaving only a handful of us defending. The attackers attempted multiple breaches and we held them off long enough for reinforcements (at which point we seemed to be even in numbers with the attackers).

You had a Guard raid in there and 20 VE, and than pugs. The only way that keep is lost is if we all monumentally *** up. There was a lot of them but also a lot of us, enough that even taking down all inner walls/doors couldn't spread out our defense.

VE didn't show up until a little bit in to the defense (there was two waves of assaults) my raid split in half and many went to work on the back cap. I guess we will have to agree to disagree with you on this which is ok, we usually agree more than we disagree. But that fight was epic. It could have gone either way-which is what made it so fun and suspenseful.

Joy_Division · May 2016

Ishammael wrote: »

CAN HAS GND OILZ?

Yes!

Rune_Relic · May 2016

tonemd wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

bitaken wrote: »

10/10

Sad thing is some players truly enjoy clicking left button to make AP.

See : Don't take my siege weapon post on page 1.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/263370/would-you-support-the-idea-of-making-siege-weapons-restricted-to-personal-use/p1

I mean - people all wigged out about their cold fires honestly believing it is their best method to earn AP sadden me so.

I don't get all the anti-siege elitism. Ap is Ap. Stop with the melodrama. It actually does take some skill to know where to position and aiming and making sure you're actually putting pain on groups of players who are blobbing, especially those who are moving fast. Siege is literally you're ONLY and best line of defense during an invasion. Sieging choke points can be very effective and lucrative at gates and bridges. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of warfare. Make the most of it. If getting owned by siege makes you THAT mad, maybe don't play a fantasy game based on medieval warfare?

Take any good pvper that you know and respect and have them fight and use their skills. Now take a level 20 and put him/her on a siege hitting the inner breach, and doing nothing but left clicking. There is a very good chance that the level 20 will make similar or greater amounts of AP than the really good pvper that not only has to employ their skill to get kills, but maneuver and stay alive in a hostile location. The level 20 is in minimal to no danger safely meatbagging from the outer 2nd floor battlement the entire fight.

That's just one reason for the anti siege elitism. The overtuned damage numbers, the fact that larger numbers are able to make better use of siege in the majority of engagements because they have the numbers to spare, the fact that we have these overtuned siege numbers in a meta of permaroots/snares and damage from other sources already being high, are other reasons.

Open an additional breach, use siege shield on the breach and everytime you stay stationary for more than a few seconds, move somewhere else on the map and force their defenses to spread to that new location, etc.

If you would think further than running in a tight ball sometimes.. Keeps are meant to be hard to not say impossible to take if well defended and if all you do is trying to run inside a single breach and win, well i'm sorry it's not how it works.

How many players do you have assigned on Siege Shield ?
How many times have you ordered your troups to get an additional breach down?
How many times have you ordered your troups to move away from a location with too much people?

What I read in the forums from you is "We are the ultimate zerg breaker. When we arrive and wipe the zerg, we save the day and the lag". What you do in reality is making it worse for the time being and getting aps.

I swear to Ruptga, for those of you in DC, if you are magicka RUN A DAMN SIEGE SHIELD! Tired of having to put this heavy magicka skill on my bar as a Stam nighblade trying to getting people through a breech.

Also, in and to the left, or in and to the right. Don't be a breech tourist, standing at the hole, looking around and getting shot in the face. You've seen it before (we used to own it).

rofl

manny254 · May 2016

Satiar wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

The best counter is multiple breaches, but there is a huge problem with that idea. That tactic only really works if you outnumber the opponent. The core problem with siege is that it will always favor the larger numbers. Personally I do not want to win a battle because I outnumber the opponent.

Regardless of the numbers present, more breaches create more offensive options and are more difficult to defend. I also disagree that siege inherently favors the side with greater numbers.

In general, I think players are too preoccupied with numbers in Cyrodiil. RvR isn't supposed to have a primary focus on individual skills. In a game intended to have strategic elements, outnumbering an opponent in one location is a valid strategy. The cost to that should be vulnerability elsewhere.

The problem is that in an AP obsessed metagame like 2.3, no one will leave a large dtick quagmire. There is no incentive to attack an opponent stacked at one location elsewhere because: 1. no one will bother defending, so it will be pvdoor; 2. poor rewards.

The focus of this game needs to be winning objectives and campaigns. Not constantly trying to demonstrate how awesome our individual or group skills are by fighting outnumbered.

or the objective should be to have fun?

Is it so wrong that I prefer enjoyable fights? Objective game play is ultimately two different situations. The first is being heavily outnumbered. The second is heavily outnumbering your opponent. This essentially means frustration and boredom. If objectives/winning where all that mattered each faction would pick a server to dominate, and no one would actually pvp. Cyrodiil would be each faction gate camping on different servers.

I have probably taken/defended more objectives than any active US AD player, and I simply do not enjoy it. Contrary to popular belief I will help take objectives, but i prefer not to participate in the laggy mess of most keep fights.

Siege by far benefits the greater numbers. You need players to operate siege and actually fight. A huge zerg can sacrifice multiple players to siege, but a small group can not always do this.

But the name of the game IS objective focused. If we all just threw our hands up and refused to play the game as it is designed...what is the point of playing?? What is the point of tactics and strategy and trying to outwit and undermine enemies? This is an MMO, for crying out loud. It's SUPPOSED to be large group play and battles over objectives and keeps. This isn't COD. Why do people insist on trying to make this game all small warfare, onesies and twosies??? To me THAT is boring.

So the game is designed to be played at 1,000+ ping?

I did not insist that the game be made that way, but there should be a place for everyone to fight. Every night I have ran a group we spend the first 1-2 hours making sure AD has some keeps. Beyond that I will play to have fun. I will help if i see a good opportunity, but i prefer not to participate in the lag.

Frankly I do not buy any of the bs about winning campaigns/objectives. I have yet to see anyone try to win the ideal way.

Here is a quick guide to winning a campaign.

1. Loose both your scrolls. Let the other factions fight over these useless objectives.
2. Try to secure/defend your home keeps.
3. Gather a raid of 24
4. Split the group into pairs,
5. Send each group to a different resource. Ideally the tri keeps of the winning factions.
6. 1-2mins before the score eval cap the 12 resources.
7. Defend home keeps, and repeat steps 3-6.

That is the ideal way to win a campaign.

Ehhhhh...

Honestly it just seems like AD is scared of red at this point. Most nights I log on and AD has tri keeps and I have 60-70 EP pushing from Aleswell to Glade because they are safe in the knowledge that AD will not push them. Sure enough, later on in the evening when in pushing to dethrone, AD will conveniently avoid pushing red and will begin attaching DC-held nickel/brindle. I have, on multiple occasions, taken Alessia and left it unrelated specifically so that AD will take a freaking keep and put pressure on the Sej corridor

Essentially, by not engaging in making the campaign competitive AD helps make it a lag fest. If EP doesn't have to worry about AD it will ALWAYS become faction vs faction slug fest because no one is pressuring them to be anywhere else.

You want less laggy fights? Pressure the map. Yesterday was hilarious, EP owned most of the map and had a Zerg at Glade, and the only AD group capable of pushing to get AD keeps back decides to come up to Glade to join in the lag fest. That will never split up the Zerg.

Ehhhhh...

The last 4 nights I captured Alessia, and we only captured Roe to prevent a free DC Emp. We also general flag/pressure Arrius if we see DC pushing the last Emp keeps.

I can only speak about the time I was playing, but we get a notorious amount of hate claiming we only pick on EP. Last night in particular AD only had 2 bars of pop. I really don't know what you expect of them.

God_flakes wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

The best counter is multiple breaches, but there is a huge problem with that idea. That tactic only really works if you outnumber the opponent. The core problem with siege is that it will always favor the larger numbers. Personally I do not want to win a battle because I outnumber the opponent.

Regardless of the numbers present, more breaches create more offensive options and are more difficult to defend. I also disagree that siege inherently favors the side with greater numbers.

In general, I think players are too preoccupied with numbers in Cyrodiil. RvR isn't supposed to have a primary focus on individual skills. In a game intended to have strategic elements, outnumbering an opponent in one location is a valid strategy. The cost to that should be vulnerability elsewhere.

The problem is that in an AP obsessed metagame like 2.3, no one will leave a large dtick quagmire. There is no incentive to attack an opponent stacked at one location elsewhere because: 1. no one will bother defending, so it will be pvdoor; 2. poor rewards.

The focus of this game needs to be winning objectives and campaigns. Not constantly trying to demonstrate how awesome our individual or group skills are by fighting outnumbered.

or the objective should be to have fun?

Is it so wrong that I prefer enjoyable fights? Objective game play is ultimately two different situations. The first is being heavily outnumbered. The second is heavily outnumbering your opponent. This essentially means frustration and boredom. If objectives/winning where all that mattered each faction would pick a server to dominate, and no one would actually pvp. Cyrodiil would be each faction gate camping on different servers.

I have probably taken/defended more objectives than any active US AD player, and I simply do not enjoy it. Contrary to popular belief I will help take objectives, but i prefer not to participate in the laggy mess of most keep fights.

Siege by far benefits the greater numbers. You need players to operate siege and actually fight. A huge zerg can sacrifice multiple players to siege, but a small group can not always do this.

But the name of the game IS objective focused. If we all just threw our hands up and refused to play the game as it is designed...what is the point of playing?? What is the point of tactics and strategy and trying to outwit and undermine enemies? This is an MMO, for crying out loud. It's SUPPOSED to be large group play and battles over objectives and keeps. This isn't COD. Why do people insist on trying to make this game all small warfare, onesies and twosies??? To me THAT is boring.

So the game is designed to be played at 1,000+ ping?

I did not insist that the game be made that way, but there should be a place for everyone to fight. Every night I have ran a group we spend the first 1-2 hours making sure AD has some keeps. Beyond that I will play to have fun. I will help if i see a good opportunity, but i prefer not to participate in the lag.

Frankly I do not buy any of the bs about winning campaigns/objectives. I have yet to see anyone try to win the ideal way.

Here is a quick guide to winning a campaign.

1. Loose both your scrolls. Let the other factions fight over these useless objectives.
2. Try to secure/defend your home keeps.
3. Gather a raid of 24
4. Split the group into pairs,
5. Send each group to a different resource. Ideally the tri keeps of the winning factions.
6. 1-2mins before the score eval cap the 12 resources.
7. Defend home keeps, and repeat steps 3-6.

That is the ideal way to win a campaign.

You're welcome to come to TF, Mojican, and show us how that's done.

I have only been playing in TF. Why would I want to do that? No one cares about campaign wins, and that is exactly my point. If people did they would use what I described.

God_flakes · May 2016

Moj, I may not care. You may not care. But trust me, people care. I get at least 5 hate tells a night from salty EP who brag about winning the last campaign and predict they will win from here on out.

manny254 · May 2016

God_flakes wrote: »

Moj, I may not care. You may not care. But trust me, people care. I get at least 5 hate tells a night from salty EP who brag about winning the last campaign and predict they will win from here on out.

Half of EP also think I am the Antichrist.

I will not believe that people genuinely care until they do what I described for a campaign.

Ghostbane · May 2016

Whenever the mine at Bloodmayne flips from yellow, Manny is one of the first there to reclaim it. I'll not hear otherwise sir.

God_flakes · May 2016

manny254 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Moj, I may not care. You may not care. But trust me, people care. I get at least 5 hate tells a night from salty EP who brag about winning the last campaign and predict they will win from here on out.

Half of EP also think I am the Antichrist.

I will not believe that people genuinely care until they do what I described for a campaign.

My my, you've come a long way from the ambitious emperor who painted TB yellow in order to encourage that campaign to revive from the ash heap of eso history.