Do you wish the siege equipments can stay strong?

Lyserus · February 2019

^This
The new bug seems to cause a debate between pvpers, about whether making siege/defense equipments very strong against players is a good or bad thing

I do not have a strong opinion myself, but I do see the benefit of it, like less zerg ball, no more heal through oils etc. If players die a lot more from siege equipments, it would require a lot more healing/rezzing to the point it's actually risky to rez those died in front of gates/ heavily fired areas...

What do you all think? I think tho it's not the best way to drastically pvo campaign together, we really can use a campaign or two for experimenting, after all, only a small amount of player play PTS

labambao · February 2019

Keep it a thing but only in some of the campaigns

Keep it, but only in cp campaigns.

Tasear · February 2019

Siege equipment should be able to be used for sieges...

Rygonix · February 2019

Tasear wrote: »

Siege equipment should be able to be used for sieges...

So are you suggesting they should only be deployable at or near destructible buildings?

RaddlemanNumber7 · February 2019

Nah remove it they are just for knock doors/walls

Being repeatedly one-shot by artillery is not an enjoyable gaming experience.

Knootewoot · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

Well, its a bit of a mixed feeling.

Yes, i do think sieges should be strong against players. But that is from a castle siege perspective.

If there is a skirmish going on in an open field, i think sieges will really ruin the fun.

Maybe sieges should keep their strength only when used within a certain radius of a keep.

That way players that like keep defending/attacking is more intense and requires better tactics then balling up at the door with a ram while the defenders can hardly do anything from the keep walls with their weak sieges.

But in skirmises the sieges won't interupt the PvP part for players that enjoy the large armies clashing while animation cancelling and using proc sets and resource cost poisons while dodge rolling all magicka users attacks.

Turelus · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

I miss strong siege. Maybe it shouldn't be this strong, but I much preferred the days when oil meant something and you didn't just rapid/purge/run and ignore the fact they have it.

Rikumaru · February 2019

Nah remove it they are just for knock doors/walls

Being able to procure a siege from thin air and placing it down in 3 seconds and then proceeding to deal 80% of the enemies HP in 1 hit (with the dot ending you) is stupid.

EdoKeledus · February 2019

Of course they need to be fixed however I think the siege weapons should be more dangerous( unshieldable and ignore the resistances) than we had before the Warthstone update.

Vicarra · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

If you get smashed in the brain by a giant boulder, you shouldn't be able to just heal through it. Sieges are not worth the effort if you can do more damage by light attacking. Keep the high damage, it's the single best thing I've seen so far for forcing ball groups to break up.

Judas Helviaryn · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

Siege should retain this level of power within a radius around keeps; It breaks up ball groups, puts more focus on survival and maneuvering when both employing a siege on an enemy position, and breaking a siege on owned real estate, while also giving WAR MACHINES the power their very category of weapon inspires.

As has been said, if you can light attack for more damage than siege equipment, why even have siege for anything but walls? At this point, you might as well just be able to light attack walls, by this logic.

Remove any AP gains from siege kills, make them absolutely lethal within a certain radius around the keeps, or even just all across Cyrodiil if necessary.

Consider the dynamic you see in similar PVP games with deployable and stationary war machines. They're not exactly there for decoration, and the level of power the individual infantry/players hold doesn't need a redundant secondary/unused source, there needs to be another level to give perspective on the war's levels of engagement.

Magic is powerful, sure. Magic-crafted war machines, whether they be our augmented traditional trebuchets and ballistae, or the more appropriately powerful automatons in a certain trial/various dungeons, should be another level above, entirely.

This is the anti-zerg mechanic this game needs, and ZOS struck upon it completely by accident. Just like how animation cancelling became the game's biggest combat boon, don't let this one slip by. This is bigger than anything AoE cap removal could achieve.

Thevampirenight · February 2019

Well I think Seige Equipment should be powerful yes. But also require team work and people to operate efficiently.
For example the more people gathered around certain seige the faster it will fire and the more damage it will do if its just one person then it would take a lot longer and do a lot less in terms of damage. For example it would be like this for the Trebuchet.
Damage and rate of fire would be based on how many people there are. If its just one man, the damage it does would be nerfed by 75 percent and it would take 30 seconds to fire. Taking it out the time for it to be placed should be 30 seconds if just one person but if four people are near them well then it should be placed down instantly.
Now if you have two people near the Trebuchet it would then fire and would only have 50% reduced Damage and it would take 15 seconds to fire. Now if you have three people It will only have reduced 25% damage and would take 10 seconds to fire.
Now if you have four People it would do full damage, and would only take 5 seconds to fire, have five people, it does bonus damage. Having six people more bonus damage, and if you have seven people manning it. The bonus damage would only be against players not keeps. It would still do normal damage to keeps and stuff. But what this would do is force team work, make it realistic and make it so groups have to plan ahead their sieges.

What they do with the ballista is the same. If its only one person placing down, it would take 15 seconds for placement. Now if there is two players near by when this happens it goes faster say ten seconds. And if there is three it would take 5 seconds and if there is four 1 second.

One person manning it, the Ballista does 75 Reduce damage to both keeps and players and takes 15 seconds to fire. But if you have two people manning it then it would only take 5 seconds to fire and it would do full damage if you have three manning it. The damage against players would be increased.

Flaming oils if one is operating the device then it would take 30 seconds to place down and fifteen seconds to fire. Now if you have two people operating it or near the player that places it down then it would take 5 seconds to place down and also would do the full damage with a 5 seconds fire rate fire. If you have three manning it then it would do 75% bonus damage to players and sieges shields can only block out half of it and also would only take 3 seconds to fire off.

Feanor · February 2019

Turelus wrote: »

I miss strong siege. Maybe it shouldn't be this strong, but I much preferred the days when oil meant something and you didn't just rapid/purge/run and ignore the fact they have it.

So in essence, you love off hour map capping and stacking 60 deep. Because this is what’s going to happen even more if it stays that way.

You know something is wrong if you see people not even trying to fight but instead frantically putting a ballista down in open field. Happened more than once yesterday.

Feanor · February 2019

This is the anti-zerg mechanic this game needs, and ZOS struck upon it completely by accident. Just like how animation cancelling became the game's biggest combat boon, don't let this one slip by. This is bigger than anything AoE cap removal could achieve.

@Judas Helviaryn

That’s completely wrong. ZOS increased siege damage - deliberately (!) - a year ago or so. The intent was the same as you preach - trying to get people to spread and break up clusters of players. It was so atrocious to play it got reverted within one incremental. Because the natural answer to more incoming damage is always more healing and more purging, and then you end up with even bigger clusters.

The only thing this achieves is killing off any remaining opportunities for solo and small scale. If that’s what you are after then it’s a good change...

Judas Helviaryn · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

Feanor wrote: »

This is the anti-zerg mechanic this game needs, and ZOS struck upon it completely by accident. Just like how animation cancelling became the game's biggest combat boon, don't let this one slip by. This is bigger than anything AoE cap removal could achieve.

@Judas Helviaryn

That’s completely wrong. ZOS increased siege damage - deliberately (!) - a year ago or so. The intent was the same as you preach - trying to get people to spread and break up clusters of players. It was so atrocious to play it got reverted within one incremental. Because the natural answer to more incoming damage is always more healing and more purging, and then you end up with even bigger clusters.

The only thing this achieves is killing off any remaining opportunities for solo and small scale. If that’s what you are after then it’s a good change...

They didn't increase the damage enough, is why. The reaction to being under the sights of the big guns shouldn't be standing, tanking, and healing. It should be scattering and repositioning in a more advantageous position from which to counter with your own war machines, or specialists who can slip behind siege lines to subvert them. Any number of strategies would immediately be required to account for this newfound threat, and this isn't even hypothetical, it's happening right in front of us.

It makes the fights more in-depth. That's so much more rewarding than facerolling through fields of burning pitch.

Solo and small scale have absolutely nothing to do with it, they get along as well as they did before. Ball groups and zergs take the biggest hits, as befitting their size. The power of a zerg doesn't scale linearly either. People who build in special ways become force multipliers in such a way that a zerg vs small scale isn't straight simple numbers vs numbers, but an arguably near exponential power gap.

It all comes down to strategy. And at the same time, removes any that could be employed from a smaller force.

Small mans need force multipliers, too. Siege.

Nerftheforums · February 2019

Nah remove it they are just for knock doors/walls

I could accept them remaining as they are if and only if they had a proxy dry mechanic. The more people that a siege hits, the more damage it does. Atm being outnumbered is already difficult enough by how much power they gave to numbers, adding this on top only makes people zerg more.

Feanor · February 2019

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

This is the anti-zerg mechanic this game needs, and ZOS struck upon it completely by accident. Just like how animation cancelling became the game's biggest combat boon, don't let this one slip by. This is bigger than anything AoE cap removal could achieve.

@Judas Helviaryn

That’s completely wrong. ZOS increased siege damage - deliberately (!) - a year ago or so. The intent was the same as you preach - trying to get people to spread and break up clusters of players. It was so atrocious to play it got reverted within one incremental. Because the natural answer to more incoming damage is always more healing and more purging, and then you end up with even bigger clusters.

The only thing this achieves is killing off any remaining opportunities for solo and small scale. If that’s what you are after then it’s a good change...

They didn't increase the damage enough, is why. The reaction to being under the sights of the big guns shouldn't be standing, tanking, and healing. It should be scattering and repositioning in a more advantageous position from which to counter with your own war machines, or specialists who can slip behind siege lines to subvert them. Any number of strategies would immediately be required to account for this newfound threat, and this isn't even hypothetical, it's happening right in front of us.

It makes the fights more in-depth. That's so much more rewarding than facerolling through fields of burning pitch.

Solo and small scale have absolutely nothing to do with it, they get along as well as they did before. Ball groups and zergs take the biggest hits.

The damage was right where it’s now - groups were racing who got the first siege down even on open field because the first hit guaranteed the Wipe. I know because I raided every day back then.

That whole tactics yada yada is just dust blown into the eyes of the uninformed. Do you actually PvP in noCP?

Mayrael · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

Turelus wrote: »

I miss strong siege. Maybe it shouldn't be this strong, but I much preferred the days when oil meant something and you didn't just rapid/purge/run and ignore the fact they have it.

Exactly. Current state needs just some tweaks, like fixing ignore of shields and other defensive mechanics. Maybe some tweaks of time between ticks, then I think I could like the change.

Mayrael · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

Nerftheforums wrote: »

I could accept them remaining as they are if and only if they had a proxy dry mechanic. The more people that a siege hits, the more damage it does. Atm being outnumbered is already difficult enough by how much power they gave to numbers, adding this on top only makes people zerg more.

This is one of the things I also always mentioned as a possible solution. Sieges working as proxy det would be nice way to convince people to spread.

Valldez · February 2019

Nah remove it they are just for knock doors/walls

if your siege can hit both enemies and your allies, and your allies oil can melt you too while you fighting enemies on choke points.. then yes, keep it OP.. just like real war centuries ago..

Holycannoli · February 2019

Turelus wrote: »

I miss strong siege. Maybe it shouldn't be this strong, but I much preferred the days when oil meant something and you didn't just rapid/purge/run and ignore the fact they have it.

Same here. Remember having to knock holes in multiple walls?

Turelus · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

Feanor wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

This is the anti-zerg mechanic this game needs, and ZOS struck upon it completely by accident. Just like how animation cancelling became the game's biggest combat boon, don't let this one slip by. This is bigger than anything AoE cap removal could achieve.

@Judas Helviaryn

That’s completely wrong. ZOS increased siege damage - deliberately (!) - a year ago or so. The intent was the same as you preach - trying to get people to spread and break up clusters of players. It was so atrocious to play it got reverted within one incremental. Because the natural answer to more incoming damage is always more healing and more purging, and then you end up with even bigger clusters.

The only thing this achieves is killing off any remaining opportunities for solo and small scale. If that’s what you are after then it’s a good change...

They didn't increase the damage enough, is why. The reaction to being under the sights of the big guns shouldn't be standing, tanking, and healing. It should be scattering and repositioning in a more advantageous position from which to counter with your own war machines, or specialists who can slip behind siege lines to subvert them. Any number of strategies would immediately be required to account for this newfound threat, and this isn't even hypothetical, it's happening right in front of us.

It makes the fights more in-depth. That's so much more rewarding than facerolling through fields of burning pitch.

Solo and small scale have absolutely nothing to do with it, they get along as well as they did before. Ball groups and zergs take the biggest hits.

The damage was right where it’s now - groups were racing who got the first siege down even on open field because the first hit guaranteed the Wipe. I know because I raided every day back then.

That whole tactics yada yada is just dust blown into the eyes of the uninformed. Do you actually PvP in noCP?

Don't stand in red.

Judas Helviaryn · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

Feanor wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

This is the anti-zerg mechanic this game needs, and ZOS struck upon it completely by accident. Just like how animation cancelling became the game's biggest combat boon, don't let this one slip by. This is bigger than anything AoE cap removal could achieve.

@Judas Helviaryn

That’s completely wrong. ZOS increased siege damage - deliberately (!) - a year ago or so. The intent was the same as you preach - trying to get people to spread and break up clusters of players. It was so atrocious to play it got reverted within one incremental. Because the natural answer to more incoming damage is always more healing and more purging, and then you end up with even bigger clusters.

The only thing this achieves is killing off any remaining opportunities for solo and small scale. If that’s what you are after then it’s a good change...

They didn't increase the damage enough, is why. The reaction to being under the sights of the big guns shouldn't be standing, tanking, and healing. It should be scattering and repositioning in a more advantageous position from which to counter with your own war machines, or specialists who can slip behind siege lines to subvert them. Any number of strategies would immediately be required to account for this newfound threat, and this isn't even hypothetical, it's happening right in front of us.

It makes the fights more in-depth. That's so much more rewarding than facerolling through fields of burning pitch.

Solo and small scale have absolutely nothing to do with it, they get along as well as they did before. Ball groups and zergs take the biggest hits.

The damage was right where it’s now - groups were racing who got the first siege down even on open field because the first hit guaranteed the Wipe. I know because I raided every day back then.

That whole tactics yada yada is just dust blown into the eyes of the uninformed. Do you actually PvP in noCP?

The siege has never been this powerful, and to boot, it goes through wards. As a magsorc, if anyone should be complaining, it's me.

I firmly believe non-CP is non-standard, and the game shouldn't be balanced around it as it stands right now.

There was no first siege down wins the game scenario tonight. I saw, and participated in, a genuinely tense siege of Chalman with both sides struggling to keep the others at bay. The defenders had the advantage, the attacking force was constantly having to shift and move, suffering casualties all the while in numbers that I haven't seen before.

The kill zones were littered with corpses, and do you really, truly believe knocking down one door or wall section of a keep constitutes a siege? You may as well be assaulting a house of cards for all the effort and excitement involved.

It's not a true -siege- until the walls are razed around the defenders at multiple points, forcing them to shift between different fronts of conflict, rather than sitting content on one southward facing wall taking pot shots.

It was better. Keeps should be hard-fought and hard-won, not traded as frequently as they are.

Rygonix · February 2019

Holycannoli wrote: »

Same here. Remember having to knock holes in multiple walls?

Thing is, we've been having to do that regularly last patch. Instead of single, atomic-powered sieges we had a wasteland of weaker sieges at each point.

GC0 · February 2019

Nah remove it they are just for knock doors/walls

The amount of damage you take from siege is ridiculous. Getting hit by one literally means death and zerglings spam siege on you, especially coldfires which are 15k a tick which is just a joke. Anyone that says that it should be kept is just not thinking straight. It doesn't make the pvp fun, it makes it cancerous because you have to actively dodge a siege which is meters away sometimes where you can't reach immediately. One guy without any issues can destroy your fights. It's very fun to be sieged 1v4-5 btw you should try getting sieged then :^). It's genuinely worse than snipe(as in it being literally cancer) when getting outnumbered and snipe needs to be removed in the state that it is right now. This siege thing is just incredibly bad for the pvp of the game as well. You are actively trying to to left click everyone down from a safe distance instead of using actual skills. Like come on you're not even pvping you're just clicking left click.

thedude33 · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

As a few have mentioned, some tweaks are needed. It's likely a little too strong now. For sure it wasn't strong enough before the patch. I'm just tired of running 2 Ballista and 1 Catapult and watching people literally dance through all three hits. They don't move.

I also agree with others that open field siege shouldn't be a thing. Towers and keeps, that's it.

RogueShark · February 2019

Nah remove it they are just for knock doors/walls

I think they could do with a buff especially in CP-campaigns, but the state which they're in now is ridiculous. I was the only one oiling a keep earlier and I racked up a ton of kills one-shotting before they broke through. That's just kinda silly.

Judas Helviaryn · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

GC0 wrote: »

The amount of damage you take from siege is ridiculous. Getting hit by one literally means death and zerglings spam siege on you, especially coldfires which are 15k a tick which is just a joke. Anyone that says that it should be kept is just not thinking straight. It doesn't make the pvp fun, it makes it cancerous because you have to actively dodge a siege which is meters away sometimes where you can't reach immediately. One guy without any issues can destroy your fights. It's very fun to be sieged 1v4-5 btw you should try getting sieged then :^). It's genuinely worse than snipe(as in it being literally cancer) when getting outnumbered and snipe needs to be removed in the state that it is right now. This siege thing is just incredibly bad for the pvp of the game as well. You are actively trying to to left click everyone down from a safe distance instead of using actual skills. Like come on you're not even pvping you're just clicking left click.

One guy with speciAlized equipment being able to give you and yours a hard time with the press of a button, supporting his front line allies?

Having to dodge hazards in the field to complete your objective?

Fair fights? Sounds to me like you want battlegrounds and brawling, not an objective-based war campaign.

There has to be some kind of dynamic that differentiates the three.

Feanor · February 2019

Turelus wrote: »

Don't stand in red.

Simple minds always favor simple solutions. If it kills you, just stay on your keep wall!

Seriously, in noCP there isn’t any oil showering or dancing in ballista bolt rain unless you got 4 or 5 dedicated Healers who are constantly purging. It’s almost as Siege has counterplay then...

Which brings us to...

I firmly believe non-CP is non-standard, and the game shouldn't be balanced around it as it stands right now.

@Judas Helviaryn

What you firmly believe or don’t believe is irrelevant when it comes to the fact that noCP is a game mode that exists and that many people enjoy. EU Sotha Sil is regularly pop locked for all alliances in prime time. So your simple “screw no CP” won’t do. ZOS has to come up with a solution. Period.

Judas Helviaryn · February 2019

Keep siege-OP a thing

Feanor wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Don't stand in red.

Simple minds always favor simple solutions. If it kills you, just stay on your keep wall!

Seriously, in noCP there isn’t any oil showering or dancing in ballista bolt rain unless you got 4 or 5 dedicated Healers who are constantly purging. It’s almost as Siege has counterplay then...

Which brings us to...

I firmly believe non-CP is non-standard, and the game shouldn't be balanced around it as it stands right now.

@Judas Helviaryn

What you firmly believe or don’t believe is irrelevant when it comes to the fact that noCP is a game mode that exists and that many people enjoy. EU Sotha Sil is regularly pop locked for all alliances in prime time. So your simple “screw no CP” won’t do. ZOS has to come up with a solution. Period.

And your assertion that I must not play non-CP campaigns, as if that's the only qualifier to having a valid opinion about the state of PVP in this game, wasn't exactly relevant either.

You have fun in your handicapped game mode, but that's ever all it really is. One game mode, and not even the default.

Remember that the game is balanced around CP characters, it doesn't just stop at 160 uninvested levels.

Brrrofski · February 2019

Nah remove it they are just for knock doors/walls

No because it's another thing that hurts the smaller group.

The Elder Scrolls Online

Do you wish the siege equipments can stay strong?

Do you wish the siege equipments can stay strong? 197 votes