You should be able to kick people off of your siege weapons

ScooberSteve · October 2016

Sanct16 wrote: »

I have spend over 200 days of playtime in cyrodiil and sieged a lot of keeps and literally never had the problem that a pug took any of my sieges.

Well ive probably got double your hours and have this problem all the time

Heike · October 2016

I know this: ZOS takes it rather serious. I've seen someone get perma banned for doing it. Now, whether or not they were given a warning and did it a second time... I don't know.

But, they were banned.

And then had their friends copying/pasting emails into zone chat, where they whined about how no one understands them in RL, etc. QQ

And, I agree; it would be easier to simply implement a mechanism to take back control. That way, there's no confusion. (Many newer players simply don't understand seiging; they see the weap, and jump on it.)

If not, and it's malicious, open up Fraps; record it; submit it; and let the idiot go find another game. Period.

visionality · October 2016

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

Oh my - you really think the purpose of the reload mechanism is to make ppl stand behind their treb waiting?

Crispen_Longbow · October 2016

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

Do you even PVP? Do you group PVP, Solo, Run map objectives? There is already a mechanism in place that has siege degrade faster when they don't have an active person on them. It should not be discouraged. You believe that for an alliance to setup 20 siege you need at least 20 players to man them? Then you would need another 20 running around protecting those on siege, as you can't leave siege to purge yourself from counter siege as your siege would disappear. We don't want Alliance VS Alliance at every keep the lag is terrible!

_Chaos · October 2016

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

Earthewen · October 2016

TheRubiksCube wrote: »

The title says it all. From what I've notice, a lot of people don't set siege weapons up, so you're going to have to set up three or four stone trebuchets to hit the wall. Then some idiot comes and steals one of them to hit something else besides the wall you want to hit. Or a guy tries to troll you by turning your siege weapons around and fire them in the opposite direction.

I totally agree and here is why:

One of my guildies sat down a siege at Sej. He was knocked off of it by one of those Templar javs. When he tired to get back onto it, somone was already there and it was a cold fire ballista. He sent a whisper to the person to ask them nicely to get off of it, but the person said, "No." Furthermore, he/she told my player that he was only there to help DC and would get on our siege on purpose to shoot out into nowhere and prevent us from hitting enemy players and thereby run down the siege on purpose.

Later, another player of ours was at an outpost that was being attacked by AD. AD wasn't on the porch so you know what the defense strat is for that; set up anti-siege on the top floor around the U and hit the enemy. Well, by the time my player ran upstairs to set up siege, another player had set up fire oils to drop all over the top floor. When my player asked him to remove a few so he could set up defense siege, the dude replied, "Oh, I do this out of habit. It helps DC when they are taking an outpost. I set things down so you guys can't. I don't know why I set them up for AD. Just out of habit I guess."

I wish I could say that these are isolated incidents, but they aren't. This is why I agree that some kind of system to kick others off our siege would be optimal.

Aside from enemy players who pretend to be in our faction stealing siege, there are the other players who simply won't buy their own siege at all and are happy to run down someone else's because they are too cheap to buy their own. If you want to siege, GO BUY YOUR OWN. Otherwise, light attack from the top of the wall like everyone else. LOL

Earthewen · October 2016

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

This, I do not agree with. I do enjoy this mechanic. I'm not really sure why this should be discouraged. This mechanic enables smaller groups to achieve something that is attainable for their faction. If we want to continue to encourage zergs, then by all means remove the ability to fire a couple of siege per person. However, so many players have been complaining, attacking, and verbally abusing guilds that they think are zerging. Yet, you want to remove a mechanic that actually is doable by a smaller group?

Personally, I am tired of hearing the "zerg" word thrown out willy-nilly as a derogatory name-calling adventure. All of the factions zerg. Fact. If you define zerg as more than a full raid in one place. To me, a full raid is not a zerg. It is simply a full raid. A zerg, in my opinion, is more than a full raid together in order to not play strategically, but just to overwhelm with sheer numbers.

I prefer smaller groups. However, if I have a small group and get "zerged" by overwhelming numbers of full raids +, then yes, I am probably going to pull my small group towards a point where more players are headed out of sheer survival. It's an arms race really. If you come out with 8 players against 8 players, whoever loses will return with 15 players. Meet 15 players with 15, and someone will return with 25. Have a full raid, you'll get met with 2 raids on the opposing side.

So, I got back to my original statement. IF zerging is so hated that it must be used as a derogatory term, then stop encouraging it and keep the mechanics that allow smaller groups some kind of success. In one stroke, ZOS could possibly end the zergs in one stroke, but every time I mention it, the people who are forum warriors and/or trolls rage, name call, and are otherwise abusive. So, on that subject ...

NaysaSimone · October 2016

Ill be honest, ill jump on a siege if i haven't seen some one use it it a while or aren't doing the rounds on the siege they've set down to prevent siege dying or a group start falling out of the keep and some one needs to keep hitting the wall to prevent repairing but I wont just sit on it, ill fire and jump off as quickly as possible. I do get annoyed with pugs jumping on siege while i jump off to buff up or I'm running the rounds of the 3/4 siege I've set down.
I agree with both sides, I'm not sure though is it worth it to kick none siege owners from siege if they're helping the greater good in that heated moment? Just a thought

KisoValley · October 2016

Sanct16 wrote: »

stop zerging then.

Kind of awkward.

Earthewen · October 2016

NaysaSimone wrote: »

Ill be honest, ill jump on a siege if i haven't seen some one use it it a while or aren't doing the rounds on the siege they've set down to prevent siege dying or a group start falling out of the keep and some one needs to keep hitting the wall to prevent repairing but I wont just sit on it, ill fire and jump off as quickly as possible. I do get annoyed with pugs jumping on siege while i jump off to buff up or I'm running the rounds of the 3/4 siege I've set down.
I agree with both sides, I'm not sure though is it worth it to kick none siege owners from siege if they're helping the greater good in that heated moment? Just a thought

Oh, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not against what you are describing at all. I look at that as helpful. However, when someone asks you to get off of their siege, then it is polite to do so. You are entirely in the right to do as you described and I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with you. That being said, what I object to is the person who simply doesn't get off the siege when you ask them. That is highly irritating.

NaysaSimone · October 2016

Oh yes for sure!!! what I was getting at if they enabled a kick non siege owner from siege then those people that do the righty to keep things flowing would no longer be able to do so, unless what you're getting at is the owner of the siege could kick or as soon as they clicked, the person on it would instantly be removed from the siege? Forgive me if that was already clarified, its very late here

spectre303 · October 2016

Sanct16 wrote: »

zuto40 wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

stop zerging then.

stop thinking only zergers have the ability to buy and use siege

But noone will steal your siege if you arent zerging a keep with pugs.

I'd rather roll w a zerg of noob pugs then spend 5 minutes in ts3 with an *** with your attitude.

Enodoc · October 2016

visionality wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

Oh my - you really think the purpose of the reload mechanism is to make ppl stand behind their treb waiting?

Yes, otherwise they would reload instantly. What else would be the purpose of a reload timer?

_Chaos · October 2016

Enodoc wrote: »

visionality wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

Oh my - you really think the purpose of the reload mechanism is to make ppl stand behind their treb waiting?

Yes, otherwise they would reload instantly. What else would be the purpose of a reload timer?

Perhaps to promote thoughtful, skilled gameplay by managing additional cooldowns while staying buffed up for those pesky gankers.

Earthewen · October 2016

Enodoc wrote: »

visionality wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

Oh my - you really think the purpose of the reload mechanism is to make ppl stand behind their treb waiting?

Yes, otherwise they would reload instantly. What else would be the purpose of a reload timer?

Well, if you study the design of a siege weapon according to history, they all have a reload time. It is sort of logical really. And if the siege weapon would disappear just because you got off of it, then the gankers that throw you off would ruin your weapons, costing more AP, and causing more outcry. Also, what about people using anti-siege on you? I tell my peeps to not stay on their siege but roll off of it and get out of the red. If they did they, they'd have to reset siege all the time.

To me, this just isn't a logical solution.

Enodoc · October 2016

Earthewen wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

This, I do not agree with. I do enjoy this mechanic. I'm not really sure why this should be discouraged. This mechanic enables smaller groups to achieve something that is attainable for their faction. If we want to continue to encourage zergs, then by all means remove the ability to fire a couple of siege per person. However, so many players have been complaining, attacking, and verbally abusing guilds that they think are zerging. Yet, you want to remove a mechanic that actually is doable by a smaller group?

Personally, I am tired of hearing the "zerg" word thrown out willy-nilly as a derogatory name-calling adventure. All of the factions zerg. Fact. If you define zerg as more than a full raid in one place. To me, a full raid is not a zerg. It is simply a full raid. A zerg, in my opinion, is more than a full raid together in order to not play strategically, but just to overwhelm with sheer numbers.

I prefer smaller groups. However, if I have a small group and get "zerged" by overwhelming numbers of full raids +, then yes, I am probably going to pull my small group towards a point where more players are headed out of sheer survival. It's an arms race really. If you come out with 8 players against 8 players, whoever loses will return with 15 players. Meet 15 players with 15, and someone will return with 25. Have a full raid, you'll get met with 2 raids on the opposing side.

So, I got back to my original statement. IF zerging is so hated that it must be used as a derogatory term, then stop encouraging it and keep the mechanics that allow smaller groups some kind of success. In one stroke, ZOS could possibly end the zergs in one stroke, but every time I mention it, the people who are forum warriors and/or trolls rage, name call, and are otherwise abusive. So, on that subject ...

Fair enough, that makes sense. The aspect of one person running multiple sieges that I don't like is the fact that they take up valuable siege spots that someone else with their own siege might want to use, and I find that rather rude. I wouldn't take someone else's siege and use that, but I can't use my own because someone is hogging all the ground. This is essentially the same thing you're complaining about in reverse - instead of me using your siege, you've taken an empty siege spot that I could be using, even though you already have one. Thus I am unable to contribute to the defense, and spend the whole time wishing the enemy would target one of your multiples so that I can set up in its place when it goes down. All in all I find the whole thing rather irritating, and haven't done much singing at all since it became the norm.

What would be interesting to see is the effectiveness of this though. Does the increase in damage over time that this results in get countered by the fact that the sieges you're not using have a faster decay rate, and by how much?

Earthewen · October 2016

Hey, there Endoc. I don't usually try to put down two siege unless it's just my little group doing stuff. If there are plenty of EP around, we don't hog the space. we WANT others to set up their siege. I know what you mean, though. I, too, can get a little miffed when I'm wanting to set up siege. Especially, when I need to set up something that does damage to enemy players and the person that took my spot is setting up a scatter shot deal. -_- Really?!!!!

What we have found is that you can basically only set up 2 ballistas due to the decay rate if they sit idle. Idle time would be after it 'locks and loads' and then is just sitting there doing nothing. My guys have all been taught to only use 2 balistas. However, it is possible to run 3 trebs without idle time. they take longer to lock and load. Anything more than that, you increase the decay time, and actually lessen the DPS on a wall because you're taking up valuable space that someone else could use.

Don't know if this helps you. I realize that this might be sharing info "with the enemy", but honestly, no one is my enemy outside the battlefield. Well, that is unless you're a cheater, a macroer, a troll or any other kind of abuser, or you steal my siege. Get off my siege. GET off my siege. GET OFF MY SEIGE FOR PETE'S SAKE!!!!!

lol

Heike · October 2016

Enodoc wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

This, I do not agree with. I do enjoy this mechanic. I'm not really sure why this should be discouraged. This mechanic enables smaller groups to achieve something that is attainable for their faction. If we want to continue to encourage zergs, then by all means remove the ability to fire a couple of siege per person. However, so many players have been complaining, attacking, and verbally abusing guilds that they think are zerging. Yet, you want to remove a mechanic that actually is doable by a smaller group?

Personally, I am tired of hearing the "zerg" word thrown out willy-nilly as a derogatory name-calling adventure. All of the factions zerg. Fact. If you define zerg as more than a full raid in one place. To me, a full raid is not a zerg. It is simply a full raid. A zerg, in my opinion, is more than a full raid together in order to not play strategically, but just to overwhelm with sheer numbers.

I prefer smaller groups. However, if I have a small group and get "zerged" by overwhelming numbers of full raids +, then yes, I am probably going to pull my small group towards a point where more players are headed out of sheer survival. It's an arms race really. If you come out with 8 players against 8 players, whoever loses will return with 15 players. Meet 15 players with 15, and someone will return with 25. Have a full raid, you'll get met with 2 raids on the opposing side.

So, I got back to my original statement. IF zerging is so hated that it must be used as a derogatory term, then stop encouraging it and keep the mechanics that allow smaller groups some kind of success. In one stroke, ZOS could possibly end the zergs in one stroke, but every time I mention it, the people who are forum warriors and/or trolls rage, name call, and are otherwise abusive. So, on that subject ...

"...but I can't use my own because someone is hogging all the ground..."

How many times, honestly, do you see keeps attacked with a full 20 seige weapons...? There's almost ALWAYS room for another treb.

If one person is running 3 trebs, then that person probably knows what he/she is doing. imo

Enodoc · October 2016

Heike wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

This, I do not agree with. I do enjoy this mechanic. I'm not really sure why this should be discouraged. This mechanic enables smaller groups to achieve something that is attainable for their faction. If we want to continue to encourage zergs, then by all means remove the ability to fire a couple of siege per person. However, so many players have been complaining, attacking, and verbally abusing guilds that they think are zerging. Yet, you want to remove a mechanic that actually is doable by a smaller group?

Personally, I am tired of hearing the "zerg" word thrown out willy-nilly as a derogatory name-calling adventure. All of the factions zerg. Fact. If you define zerg as more than a full raid in one place. To me, a full raid is not a zerg. It is simply a full raid. A zerg, in my opinion, is more than a full raid together in order to not play strategically, but just to overwhelm with sheer numbers.

I prefer smaller groups. However, if I have a small group and get "zerged" by overwhelming numbers of full raids +, then yes, I am probably going to pull my small group towards a point where more players are headed out of sheer survival. It's an arms race really. If you come out with 8 players against 8 players, whoever loses will return with 15 players. Meet 15 players with 15, and someone will return with 25. Have a full raid, you'll get met with 2 raids on the opposing side.

So, I got back to my original statement. IF zerging is so hated that it must be used as a derogatory term, then stop encouraging it and keep the mechanics that allow smaller groups some kind of success. In one stroke, ZOS could possibly end the zergs in one stroke, but every time I mention it, the people who are forum warriors and/or trolls rage, name call, and are otherwise abusive. So, on that subject ...

"...but I can't use my own because someone is hogging all the ground..."

How many times, honestly, do you see keeps attacked with a full 20 seige weapons...? There's almost ALWAYS room for another treb.

If one person is running 3 trebs, then that person probably knows what he/she is doing. imo

Right, but when you consider the intention is usually to be hitting the same bit of wall, or at least something nearby, setting up your treb on the opposite side of the keep isn't very useful. The 20 siege limit isn't hit, but the available ground to attack the relevant bit of wall is saturated due to the siege restriction radius.

It's much worse on defence, when there are only a few suitable parapets to use.

Skyy · October 2016

Enodoc wrote: »

Heike wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

I would much rather see someone's extra sieges despawn when they use another one. People who take advantage of the way sieges reload to leave the one they're on and fire a different one should be discouraged, as that voids the purpose of the reload mechanism.

This, I do not agree with. I do enjoy this mechanic. I'm not really sure why this should be discouraged. This mechanic enables smaller groups to achieve something that is attainable for their faction. If we want to continue to encourage zergs, then by all means remove the ability to fire a couple of siege per person. However, so many players have been complaining, attacking, and verbally abusing guilds that they think are zerging. Yet, you want to remove a mechanic that actually is doable by a smaller group?

Personally, I am tired of hearing the "zerg" word thrown out willy-nilly as a derogatory name-calling adventure. All of the factions zerg. Fact. If you define zerg as more than a full raid in one place. To me, a full raid is not a zerg. It is simply a full raid. A zerg, in my opinion, is more than a full raid together in order to not play strategically, but just to overwhelm with sheer numbers.

I prefer smaller groups. However, if I have a small group and get "zerged" by overwhelming numbers of full raids +, then yes, I am probably going to pull my small group towards a point where more players are headed out of sheer survival. It's an arms race really. If you come out with 8 players against 8 players, whoever loses will return with 15 players. Meet 15 players with 15, and someone will return with 25. Have a full raid, you'll get met with 2 raids on the opposing side.

So, I got back to my original statement. IF zerging is so hated that it must be used as a derogatory term, then stop encouraging it and keep the mechanics that allow smaller groups some kind of success. In one stroke, ZOS could possibly end the zergs in one stroke, but every time I mention it, the people who are forum warriors and/or trolls rage, name call, and are otherwise abusive. So, on that subject ...

"...but I can't use my own because someone is hogging all the ground..."

How many times, honestly, do you see keeps attacked with a full 20 seige weapons...? There's almost ALWAYS room for another treb.

If one person is running 3 trebs, then that person probably knows what he/she is doing. imo

Right, but when you consider the intention is usually to be hitting the same bit of wall, or at least something nearby, setting up your treb on the opposite side of the keep isn't very useful. The 20 siege limit isn't hit, but the available ground to attack the relevant bit of wall is saturated due to the siege restriction radius.

It's much worse on defence, when there are only a few suitable parapets to use.

If the 20 siege limit isn't hit, then there is almost always room for more siege to be hitting the same wall. There are very few walls that couldn't be hit with 35+ siege if it weren't for the siege limit.

Edit: I hadn't even taken into consideration the smaller footprint of ballistae. Now you should definitely not have any trouble finding a spot.

NBrookus · October 2016

Enodoc wrote: »

Fair enough, that makes sense. The aspect of one person running multiple sieges that I don't like is the fact that they take up valuable siege spots that someone else with their own siege might want to use, and I find that rather rude. I wouldn't take someone else's siege and use that, but I can't use my own because someone is hogging all the ground.

With the new smaller siege footprints, this is largely a non-issue; there's more room for siege than max siege allowed almost everywhere.

I think folks who really want to operate a stone treb to hit a wall are way outnumbered by those who don't buy siege.

Asardes · October 2016

Make cold fire trebuchets into plows!

GreenSoup2HoT · November 2016

W0lf_z13 wrote: »

completely agree with this.... a few weeks ago i was at a keep defense... threw down a CF ballista shot a few times then backed off to get out of the red circle.... during that time another dc member decided... OH! im gonna use this ... if it wasnt for having a good amount of siege repair kits my ballista would have been destroyed ....

I asked politely that he got off my seige 3 times ... no response... then i got not so polite about 3 more times until they finally got off without saying a single word.... he shortly later died in front of me and i just walked over his dead body without rezzing him

Should of used the stomp emote on him.

Armitas · November 2016

I want the option to self detonate the siege killing all siege inhabitants.