It’s not surprising. Left clicking is a good start for raising that floor.

Berenhir wrote: »

Zer0oo wrote: »

what would be the perfect siege build for the pvp event? Just asking for a friend.

2xskoria+5xsloads+5?

Vicious Death instead of sloads. You could try if elf bane increased the oil dot.

I'd recommend heartland, just because you will get sieged while sieging yourself.

Also never tested if bloodthirsty works.

I never thought of that!!!

@IxSTALKERxI - gonna get rekt by left mouse button

Joy_Division wrote: »

Berenhir wrote: »

Zer0oo wrote: »

what would be the perfect siege build for the pvp event? Just asking for a friend.

2xskoria+5xsloads+5?

Vicious Death instead of sloads. You could try if elf bane increased the oil dot.

I'd recommend heartland, just because you will get sieged while sieging yourself.

Also never tested if bloodthirsty works.

I never thought of that!!!

@IxSTALKERxI - gonna get rekt by left mouse button

Time to hide inside imperial city. They can't siege in there.

I like the change. Hope it goes live.

TL;DR: If siege is going to be extremely potent and dangerous, it should have real costs (either to carry, set up, or purchase) to balance out their extreme damage output.

There's nothing more frustrating to be already fighting against the odds than to see a person in the distance laying down a meatbag and a scattershot. Sometimes this happens in a keep, sometimes it's literally in an open field that warrants no siege usage.

There is nothing skillful or rewarding about being able to lay down a siege that does ridiculous damage (and also has basically no inventory cost and costs nothing to buy).

If they're going to keep making siege into what is apparently an "I win" mechanic, particularly for when you are outnumbering someone, that's fine. But they need to attach REAL costs to placing a siege down, as they currently are:

1. Ridiculously easy to set up and stack multiples of anywhere in Cyrodiil
2. Basically free
3. Embarrassingly easy to carry hundreds of
4. Easy to cast then jump off of to do other things (like operate 3 at a time...)

Unless the original intent and design of siege weaponry is to drop twenty down everywhere you go because they have basically no down-side, we need some changes to how siege mechanics work.

I think there is a very valid place for siege: large battles for keeps and resources. You should have to think to yourself "man, this fight using a scattershot is worth the cost of setting it up and potentially losing it." Currently it's "eh, this siege costs 2000 AP and is sure to one shot somebody so why not drop 6."

With the sheer amount of AP laying in people's banks, I don't have a great solution for cost (as increasing cost would affect some more than others). However, it feels extremely wrong for people to be able to carry around 200+ essentially free 1-shot mechanics in their inventory that can be placed anywhere in massive quantities.

Beardimus wrote: »

Getting hit in the head with a treb / ballista etc probably would really hurt in real life right.

And in game you get an almighty red circle appear warning you to block / roll / ward / move.

People dont like change, but personally things being more realistic, is better.

Sure it slows play, makes it more tactical etc but that's a good thing than just zerging everywhere.

In real life AD would win every fight because you wouldn't survive the onslaught of bow light attacks.

Glory wrote: »

TL;DR: If siege is going to be extremely potent and dangerous, it should have real costs (either to carry, set up, or purchase) to balance out their extreme damage output.

There's nothing more frustrating to be already fighting against the odds than to see a person in the distance laying down a meatbag and a scattershot. Sometimes this happens in a keep, sometimes it's literally in an open field that warrants no siege usage.

There is nothing skillful or rewarding about being able to lay down a siege that does ridiculous damage (and also has basically no inventory cost and costs nothing to buy).

If they're going to keep making siege into what is apparently an "I win" mechanic, particularly for when you are outnumbering someone, that's fine. But they need to attach REAL costs to placing a siege down, as they currently are:

1. Ridiculously easy to set up and stack multiples of anywhere in Cyrodiil
2. Basically free
3. Embarrassingly easy to carry hundreds of
4. Easy to cast then jump off of to do other things (like operate 3 at a time...)

Unless the original intent and design of siege weaponry is to drop twenty down everywhere you go because they have basically no down-side, we need some changes to how siege mechanics work.

I think there is a very valid place for siege: large battles for keeps and resources. You should have to think to yourself "man, this fight using a scattershot is worth the cost of setting it up and potentially losing it." Currently it's "eh, this siege costs 2000 AP and is sure to one shot somebody so why not drop 6."

With the sheer amount of AP laying in people's banks, I don't have a great solution for cost (as increasing cost would affect some more than others). However, it feels extremely wrong for people to be able to carry around 200+ essentially free 1-shot mechanics in their inventory that can be placed anywhere in massive quantities.

Wait a minute.

Are you even remotely suggesting that it is the side with superior numbers who seize upon the opportunity to lay down siege in relative safety and blast away at the outnumbered side? Are you also suggesting that because it's so easy and so lucrative, that 5 star Grand Overloads would completely ignore their character abilities and instead use their inventory and couple it with gear (Sloads!) to play a game in which they have defeated a mighty daedric prince?

*****

I would have no problem with the ridiculous siege damage if those people who used it actually had to invest an opportunity cost for having such power. It would have been nice if the Alliance War ranking actually had exclusive ability trees players could choose, that is they could choose stuff that would make their siege more powerful, but in making such a choice, the other trees that enhanced players in other means. That way those people who wanted to be power siege experts can do so, but would actually have to make that choice rather than ZOS giving it out for free.

JackAshes wrote: »

What a horrible idea. No one wants to go to Sotha for this very reason. Unless Lord Feng brings his Orc army in there it is usually diserted. What they should do is reduce Sotha siege damage by 35% so it will get more play. It’s like the Devs are smoking Skooma all day and are not in touch with their community:(

Don't know under which rock you live under but when I come home and want to jump into sotha I usually have to wait quite a while. But granted, during off hours vivec is more populated. Although there are many reasons why some prefer one or the other pvp campaign.

Having ability/ seige altering sets sounds awful honestly.

I still think that doors and walls need an hp or damage resistant buff.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Glory wrote: »

TL;DR: If siege is going to be extremely potent and dangerous, it should have real costs (either to carry, set up, or purchase) to balance out their extreme damage output.

There's nothing more frustrating to be already fighting against the odds than to see a person in the distance laying down a meatbag and a scattershot. Sometimes this happens in a keep, sometimes it's literally in an open field that warrants no siege usage.

There is nothing skillful or rewarding about being able to lay down a siege that does ridiculous damage (and also has basically no inventory cost and costs nothing to buy).

If they're going to keep making siege into what is apparently an "I win" mechanic, particularly for when you are outnumbering someone, that's fine. But they need to attach REAL costs to placing a siege down, as they currently are:

1. Ridiculously easy to set up and stack multiples of anywhere in Cyrodiil
2. Basically free
3. Embarrassingly easy to carry hundreds of
4. Easy to cast then jump off of to do other things (like operate 3 at a time...)

Unless the original intent and design of siege weaponry is to drop twenty down everywhere you go because they have basically no down-side, we need some changes to how siege mechanics work.

I think there is a very valid place for siege: large battles for keeps and resources. You should have to think to yourself "man, this fight using a scattershot is worth the cost of setting it up and potentially losing it." Currently it's "eh, this siege costs 2000 AP and is sure to one shot somebody so why not drop 6."

With the sheer amount of AP laying in people's banks, I don't have a great solution for cost (as increasing cost would affect some more than others). However, it feels extremely wrong for people to be able to carry around 200+ essentially free 1-shot mechanics in their inventory that can be placed anywhere in massive quantities.

Wait a minute.

Are you even remotely suggesting that it is the side with superior numbers who seize upon the opportunity to lay down siege in relative safety and blast away at the outnumbered side? Are you also suggesting that because it's so easy and so lucrative, that 5 star Grand Overloads would completely ignore their character abilities and instead use their inventory and couple it with gear (Sloads!) to play a game in which they have defeated a mighty daedric prince?

*****

I would have no problem with the ridiculous siege damage if those people who used it actually had to invest an opportunity cost for having such power. It would have been nice if the Alliance War ranking actually had exclusive ability trees players could choose, that is they could choose stuff that would make their siege more powerful, but in making such a choice, the other trees that enhanced players in other means. That way those people who wanted to be power siege experts can do so, but would actually have to make that choice rather than ZOS giving it out for free.

Agreed. It's important for us to show that we understand that siege should have a place in Cyrodiil, but it does not make sense for them to be placeable everywhere with zero downside or cost.

I do like the idea of specc'ing into siege at the cost of other things, although I am not sure how implementable this would be.

Glory wrote: »

Following up from my previous post, I think the changes to siege damage are set in stone and unavoidable.

However, my suggestions to attaching a real cost to make people think before they lay 20 down...

Relatively random order:

1. Significantly increase time to lay down a siege (5 seconds, 10 seconds? shouldn't be 2 seconds to place a huge trebuchet)
2. Significantly increase cost (10k AP per siege? would affect newer players more than others, unless new currency introduced)
3. Increase carry "weight" (e.g. each ballista takes 2 spaces, trebs 3, rams 4, etc.)
4. If we're talking "realism" as so many people in this thread believe is fine ("siege in real life one shots you so this should too") then adding a weighted debuff (not a real suggestion as people would hate it, but seriously, real life != this game's mechanics)

I'd disagree with a cost increase; for those with 10's of million of AP in the bank it would mean nothing, but to new players it would remove one of the ways they can contribute most.

But setting up siege does need to be hard to do if it's going to do this much damage. I'd start by making siege only work in the radius of a keep. Yes that means no oils on top of Alessia bridge. But also no plopping down a siege line while a zerg is chasing 3 people.

As for the issue of carrying around 100 siege... maybe siege expires in your inventory? Meaning you either need to plan ahead, or you need to take a resource and buy siege there before taking the keep. Maybe each resource sells a particular kind of siege. Fire siege at mines, scattershots at lumbermills, etc.

NBrookus wrote: »

Glory wrote: »

Following up from my previous post, I think the changes to siege damage are set in stone and unavoidable.

However, my suggestions to attaching a real cost to make people think before they lay 20 down...

Relatively random order:

1. Significantly increase time to lay down a siege (5 seconds, 10 seconds? shouldn't be 2 seconds to place a huge trebuchet)
2. Significantly increase cost (10k AP per siege? would affect newer players more than others, unless new currency introduced)
3. Increase carry "weight" (e.g. each ballista takes 2 spaces, trebs 3, rams 4, etc.)
4. If we're talking "realism" as so many people in this thread believe is fine ("siege in real life one shots you so this should too") then adding a weighted debuff (not a real suggestion as people would hate it, but seriously, real life != this game's mechanics)

I'd disagree with a cost increase; for those with 10's of million of AP in the bank it would mean nothing, but to new players it would remove one of the ways they can contribute most.

But setting up siege does need to be hard to do if it's going to do this much damage. I'd start by making siege only work in the radius of a keep. Yes that means no oils on top of Alessia bridge. But also no plopping down a siege line while a zerg is chasing 3 people.

As for the issue of carrying around 100 siege... maybe siege expires in your inventory? Meaning you either need to plan ahead, or you need to take a resource and buy siege there before taking the keep. Maybe each resource sells a particular kind of siege. Fire siege at mines, scattershots at lumbermills, etc.

Agree with your sentiment on cost increase. The number of individuals who have far too much AP to do anything with (myself included) would make any change unfeasible to have an impact (either overtuned and screw over new players, or make no tangible difference).

I also like both of your ideas, siege "health" decreasing over time in your inventory (at a slower rate but similar to how it decays on the battlefield) sounds like a healthy solution so you can't walk around with pockets full of trebuchets.