Having to play tactically by placing siege weapons as defenders, considering how the defenders placed their siege weapons as attackers when placing yours, etc.
These are good things to improve the skill ceiling.

The only mandatory rule is that the maximum range siege weapon cannot be built near the walls to prevent a fort to be unconquerable. All sort of siege weapons could be added and improved to make it more diverse.

Siege towers and ladders would be fun to use too. Distract the defenders while a stealth team come from the other side with two ladders.

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

MikaHR wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Rikumaru wrote: »

Uryel wrote: »

Rikumaru wrote: »

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.

Because being able to spit fire onto everyone in front of you, calling down a meteor, or healing by waving your hands in the air isn't ?

This game has magic. Deal with it.

Also, has anyone here taken a direct hit from a catapult or a ballista IRL ? No, of course, you wouldn't be there to talk about it. A ballista could nail a freaking horse to a stone wall...

Sure thing, but when I call down my meteor I want it to act how it would do IRL. Because if you got hit by a meteor the size of the one you have in the game, you wouldn't be there to talk about it

GC0 wrote: »

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/444948818459361299/550250654258429969/thisshouldnotbeathing1.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/444948818459361299/550250655189827584/shouldnotbeathing2.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/444948818459361299/550250657492238346/shouldnotbeathing3.png

This should be in the game, seriously? This is just ridiculous. 1 colfire tick is 15k damage. What the *** man?!

Also in the end it's a BUG, not intended.

Animation cancelling was unintended, and it was the one thing that gave us fast paced, reactive and relatively skill-based combat and build complexity, and stood ESO out from the crowd.

Are you anti-AC?

It would maybe be great for people with < 50 ping AND when game works properly.

When skills dont fire...at ALL, when weapon swap is unreliable etc etc...theres a reason why other MMOs dont do this.

So all it has gave us is that most of people want it out and fixed as it is influenced by reasons beyond their control.

I'm sorry you deal with this. I had satellite for four years on this game, which has a minimum ping of roughly 600, and for me, an average of 1400 to 2000 in combat. I was able to animation cancel absolutely fine, believe it or not, but my jitter was low. I believe that is the defining factor; Jitter, not latency to that rough threshold.

That being said, the game is designed around a standard, and that's probably going to be relatively low ping and stable connectivity.

It sucks, especially for our Oceanic friends. I still would miss mine dearly if they ever did launch a server in that spot of the world.

We all make due how we can.

No it doesnt work "properly". You didnt do "fine".

And thats why MMOs dont do that, because it sucks for most people without perfect conditions and lets not even start mentioning all teh game issues.

In the end it is a bug and not intended and as such it should be fixed (along with WRONG durations of animations for heavy attacks, which is the same utterly stuipd category like animation cnacellng)

To those calling for siege weapons to be realistically strong I would suggest we can do that as soon as:

- It takes a team of people to transport a single siege engine across Cyrodiil not carrying dozens in your backpack.
- They take minutes if not hours to set up by that same team.
- It takes team to load, prime and fire them.
- Walls become realistically scaleable with siege ladders
- Attackers can deploy siege towers to gain wall access.

Last time this happened we got static campaigns because sieges took a lot more people which meant a lot more lagging and crashing out. Plus a handful of defenders could defend against huge numbers - which is actually somewhat realistic but dull in a game situation.

It also gave advantage to alliances with well situated key castles - castles where siege could be positioned above the walls where defenders could not hit back were taken a lot more easily than castles surrounded by flat land or were built were anyone would actually build a castle in real life i.e. on raised ground!

Finally it unduly rewards night capping which is already the method with which too many campaigns are turned because cappers can still PvD but recovering the castles in prime time becomes much harder even against a small defence.

In this case realistic damage from a huge boulder must take a backseat to allowing the game to flow.

PureEnvelope35 wrote: »

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.

I personally enjoy when people deploy a cold fire to kill me in a 8v1, super fun game mechanic for solo players.

Pure joy.

With 350 ping game feels liek slow mo.

Probably going to make it worse you will have to run larger groups to be suscessfull.

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

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.

I totally agree. Non CP has it totally right.

CP Campaigns are totally broken between the massive Zergs, and loading screens and skill delay in the middle of combat.

Siege should be relevant. I have not PvPd in months exactly because it has stopped being fun. Used to be every man for himself in a loosely organized army of sorts. You'd kill, you'd die. Win some lose some. You'd feel like you made a difference, even as a solo player in a keep fight.

Lately though it always goes like this. Unless the enemies we find are few, 9 times out of 10 the conflicts end with 'unkillable zerg ball, just ignore and let's go elsewhere.' Defending is pointless because unless we can coordinate 5 ballistae and 4 oils to drop on the ball at the EXACT same time, they'll just keep going and going, splatting every single player they touch.

Snares are useless. AoEs are useless. Keep captures generally end in a cat and mouse game that lasts for 10 minutes or more of the 'winning' side chasing a ball group around the keep, up and down stairs, and they just don't die. Again, 9 out of 10 times the group stops bothering and leaves the randoms to deal with the zerg because it's far less frustrating to go do something other than chasing that amoeba around corners.

Same thing during siege. If they're at the door, I find myself looking at the siege engines I'm carrying and thinking 'this is useless, this doesn't kill anyone, this won't make a difference'. Coldfires are the only siege that I bother to use when I actually want to properly try and hit someone because there is practically no point in throwing stuff at the attacking group. Ballistae, low damage. Kill no one unless they stand there AFK. Trebs, take so long to hit that by the time the projectile lands the keep has already been turned. Which means it never hits anyone. Oils, you can have two, three, four on a door. Makes ZERO difference. Ball group just waltzes right through and steamroll everyone inside.

Not sure about you guys but I'm under the impression that siege engines should be scary. They should give players pause instead of just being there for decorating. It doesn't matter how big an army is; if they get hit with a siege engine projectile there SHOULD be casualties. In ESO they just march over the engines shrugging off any incoming damage.

Keep siege's high damage against players. It would be better if they did more damage the more people they hit. Otherwise those small groups and solo players would have no chance to fight. Make it like maybe they are more agile than giant human globs and can sidestep some shrapnel or something. Ukillable zerg amoebas should pay dearly for walking into siege fire. This would make siege engines more relevant and make people have to actually use some strategy when attacking instead of merely walking right through the fire.

/rant

GC0 wrote: »

Yeah but did you see the massive red circle around where ballista hit which is not realistic if you're aiming for that? If you think that the siege should do that much damage and you are comparing it to irl medieval siege equipment in that case the ballista should have the aoe of literally nothing and in the end and would do no damage because you can't hit a single nimble player. By nimble I mean literally any class and moving like 1 meter to the side :^)

Actually, the ballista should pierce through everything until it hits a wall. Zero AoE, but unlimited number of potential target hit. Step aside or be nailed to the wall :P Also, the catapult should randomize its damage in the area of effect, damage depending on how big the chunk of stone that hit you was.

Quite frankly, I don't PvP, so it doesn't affect me. I just find it hilarious that people complain about machinery designed to bring dow massive walls of stone would damage them significantly. I'm actually surprised they did NOT deal significant damage before.

It's enlightening to think that those are the same people who also whine when a sneaky archer ganks them, which in turn led us PvE players having stealth forcefully removed from some of our characters for no reason besides kiddies who are sore losers and devs listening to them way too much.

5 just took a tower. Survived 3x oils on them. Apparently, it's doable

I think they are a little too strong right now but should be stronger than what we previously had.

gg on that static fights
gonna be really nice game experience 2 factions seeing each other and not leaving their siege cause if you leave it you gonna die by other siege; what is this xD
Maybe funny to troll Groups a couple of times, but not enjoyable on the Long term