Would you support the idea of making siege weapons restricted to personal use?

mdylan2013 · May 2016

Restrict use to owners group

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

You can only have so many siege machines active in one location. So if we were to restrict usage of these siege machines. Its quite possible it would cause more issues than solve.

If the siege machine cap is hit and those siege machine owners die. How will the siege continue? Those still alive will have to abandon it, fall back and let those on defense in the keep/outpost to come out and destroy those siege machines and gain ground. Then survivors would then have to beat the defenders back into their keep/outpost to start the process all over again.

No. If you dont want people using your siege machine. Dont leave it. Simple as that.

If someone dies on a siege surely you'd resurrect that person rather than use their siege and leave them dead on the floor.

Rohamad_Ali · May 2016

I'm just nervous about any changes in cyrodil . It's so easy to break stuff there . I get the idea though .

ZOS_DaryaK · May 2016

We've moved this thread to the Alliance War forum.

nudel · May 2016

No keep it as it is, anyone can use

Definitely not. I frequently drop more siege than I can maintain so that my allies can use it. I know others who do the same.
Many times, I have also shared siege that I purchased with friends and guildmates, putting it in the guild bank, directly trading it, or simply placing it nearby for them to use.

This is a marathon not a sprint. I'm more interested in winning the war than my own personal AP ticks from a few more kills with siege.

bitaken · May 2016

Restrict use to owners group

Gaining AP by use of siege and thinking that is the reason to make it owner only...disgusts me to the core.

However, I cannot stand it when someone grabs one of my three trebs and turns it - the opposite direction - to troll the siege or to just be a ***.

So, I am 100% behind the concept of making it owner's group only use. However, something like this will never happen.

Arthg · May 2016

No keep it as it is, anyone can use

I think we should still be able to share them.
After all, it's for the cause.

Quite often, deploying siege weapons and leaving them for other players to action can completely turn the tables in a fight.
This is also how lower level players can learn to use them.

Korah_Eaglecry · May 2016

No keep it as it is, anyone can use

mdylan2013 wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

You can only have so many siege machines active in one location. So if we were to restrict usage of these siege machines. Its quite possible it would cause more issues than solve.

If the siege machine cap is hit and those siege machine owners die. How will the siege continue? Those still alive will have to abandon it, fall back and let those on defense in the keep/outpost to come out and destroy those siege machines and gain ground. Then survivors would then have to beat the defenders back into their keep/outpost to start the process all over again.

No. If you dont want people using your siege machine. Dont leave it. Simple as that.

If someone dies on a siege surely you'd resurrect that person rather than use their siege and leave them dead on the floor.

Yes because everyones carrying soul gems and everyone sticks around hoping someone will revive them. And how interesting you think its okay to expect others to spend their soul gems on someone that doesnt want to share their siege machines. How hypocritical.

Humphie · May 2016

Restrict use to the owner only

Some guy jumped on my Coldfire siege while I repaired it. After asking him nicely to get off, he told me to shut up and go buy tampons...Soooo yeah. My siege, only mine. Can't mess with my Coldfire. Like ever.

mdylan2013 · May 2016

Restrict use to owners group

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

mdylan2013 wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

You can only have so many siege machines active in one location. So if we were to restrict usage of these siege machines. Its quite possible it would cause more issues than solve.

If the siege machine cap is hit and those siege machine owners die. How will the siege continue? Those still alive will have to abandon it, fall back and let those on defense in the keep/outpost to come out and destroy those siege machines and gain ground. Then survivors would then have to beat the defenders back into their keep/outpost to start the process all over again.

No. If you dont want people using your siege machine. Dont leave it. Simple as that.

If someone dies on a siege surely you'd resurrect that person rather than use their siege and leave them dead on the floor.

Yes because everyones carrying soul gems and everyone sticks around hoping someone will revive them. And how interesting you think its okay to expect others to spend their soul gems on someone that doesnt want to share their siege machines. How hypocritical.

I could flip that argument around and say it's selfish for someone to want to use another persons siege but not wanting to revive that person who is dead on the floor.

When a castle is flagged I wait for a revive for a short period of time, to not do so is rather silly.

Ourorboros · May 2016

Restrict use to owners group

Humphie wrote: »

Some guy jumped on my Coldfire siege while I repaired it. After asking him nicely to get off, he told me to shut up and go buy tampons...Soooo yeah. My siege, only mine. Can't mess with my Coldfire. Like ever.

^^^^^This one hundred times over. I want to kick a rude jackass like the one above. Yeah, it's a group effort, but everyone should have to contribute. Leeches need to be encouraged to contribute if they want to PVP. Staying on siege to keep it from being hijacked is stupid. Aside from stopping you from other actions, it makes you blind to gankers. Sharing siege can be good, but keep it limited to group, where disagreements might actually be settled. If leeches won't buy siege, they can go PVE.

NO to th?&id=OIP.M98b83102826737594a0805c7123b2699H0&w=182&h=138&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

th?&id=OIP.M98b83102826737594a0805c7123b2699H0&w=182&h=138&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

on

th?&id=OIP.M4aeff29b9f5d4da3ef779d79f4ba2afdo0&w=128&h=127&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

Humphie · May 2016

Restrict use to the owner only

Ourorboros wrote: »

Humphie wrote: »

Some guy jumped on my Coldfire siege while I repaired it. After asking him nicely to get off, he told me to shut up and go buy tampons...Soooo yeah. My siege, only mine. Can't mess with my Coldfire. Like ever.

^^^^^This one hundred times over. I want to kick a rude jackass like the one above. Yeah, it's a group effort, but everyone should have to contribute. Leeches need to be encouraged to contribute if they want to PVP. Staying on siege to keep it from being hijacked is stupid. Aside from stopping you from other actions, it makes you blind to gankers. Sharing siege can be good, but keep it limited to group, where disagreements might actually be settled. If leeches won't buy siege, they can go PVE.

NO to on

I went on my other faction toon and got him pretty easy. He melted, so did my Coldfire but it was so worth it. And thank you Zos for spoiled food. So much better than tbagging!

Rune_Relic · May 2016

Funny thing is I never use ayones siege unless they go MIA.
Remember the 1st time I entered cyrodiil jumping on an emps siege.
He wasnt impressed. But politely imformed me he done double my damage
I never realised he had multiple up at the same time.

The days of noobhood.

Plenty of people nick my siege.
Normally when I am being accosted though ...so its all good for me.

MidnightBlue · May 2016

The only issue I have is we had people not in our group take it and turn our sieges around. We then can't shoot the walls which makes a huge strain on taking a keep because people didn't want us getting Emperor.

Astanphaeus · May 2016

Restrict use to owners group

WldKarde wrote: »

Not that I PvP that much...

But since this is a WAR...I would think that individual gain is not the goal here.

Yes I realize that this is a game BTW, but when I go to Cyrodiil it's to help my faction more so than to worry about my stats. Whatever it takes to get the job done is good enough for me. If my side wins, then I profit through AP gains. If not, then I've gained new insight into how to be better in PvP...either way I still feel the siege weapon was well spent.

It's not about individual gain, it's about when you are trying to run 3 sieges and some random player comes along and decides to use your siege to hit the door and do no damage or try to hit single players with your stone treb. It's not helping anyone. It's a severe detraction from the war capabilities. You may not have another treb for yourself, or not have additional room to set it up, and it becomes a complete waste of the siege weapon.

Now, I would prefer just some system of owner prioritization, but absent that, I prefer restricted to owner's group. Yes there are situations where it can be helpful to have someone else flip your siege, but those happen less to me than someone coming up and doing stupid things with my siege.

KenaPKK · May 2016

Make it so anyone can use but the owner gets a portion of AP earned

Maaaaan why is everyone so butthurt these days and trying to make rules rules rules?

"Waaaaah mommy, he's using my siege but it's MINE!"

GaldorP · May 2016

Restrict use to owners group

I would like to see something like this for siege weapons:

zuto40 · May 2016

Make it so anyone can use but the owner gets a portion of AP earned

i wanna use all the noobs for ez AP

Ankael07 · May 2016

Restrict use to owners group

Guys dont forget that if we give owner restriction it would solve the problem of enemy spies turning them 180 degrees

Kalebron · May 2016

Restrict use to the owner only

I'm selfish and I paid for it. Plus, it would add more accountability to group members in Pvp.

kevlarto_ESO · May 2016

No keep it as it is, anyone can use

I don't really care, if I am not on it and someone uses it that's fine with me, with the decay rate so high for an unmanned siege weapon, I would rather see it get used shooting at the enemy than just rot away.

Nahz · May 2016

In my opinion, siege weapons should be useable by anyone in your alliance but the owner of the siege weapon should be able to kick people off of it. I find my siege constantly being pilfered by new players (and players who should know better...), and it can be frustrating. I've also had my siege stolen and turned 180' by salt shakers, which is even worse because ZOS condones griefing alliance members but does not give us any counter measures.

However, many players completely abandon their siege when they break down a wall. If I'm not rushing into the breach, I sometimes use their weapons to take a few shots at enemy players or to tag a wall so it can't be repaired. Making siege accessible only by the owner/group members would also open the door for more griefing. I can easily run 4 trebs effectively, and can inefficiently run more. Given that keeps have a cap of 20 siege that can be laid out at once, a few rotten eggs can take up a large chunk of that potential limit.

In addition, my guild often has other people set siege down for members to use. Many of us keep commonly used weapons like stone trebs and fire ballista slotted, but we'll often designate people to have uncommon items slotted (e.g., rams, fire trebs, etc.) should a situation suddenly arise and we don't have time to swap our quick slots.

As a side note, if you like running oil pots, I'll be happy to put some down over a breach for you to run... The AP from them is great, but they are so boring to use...

visionality · May 2016

Restrict use to owners group

I'm all in for restricted use in a group. I normally set down 3 trebs to use them in rotation, and painfully often at least one of my trebs is being "rented" by another player. Which relieves him of setting down own sieges ofc for which he would have to pay in AP or gold. (And I'm not talking about the rare occasions when there is a 20/20 siege or no space left to set down more sieges.)

Problem is that apart from an egoistic personality which should not be rewarded, in 25% of all "renting cases" the players are also total noobs who shoot at the door or shoot just at "something" (e.g. the ground). Or they abuse my sieges for their AP farming and stop sieging walls or doors to shoot at enemies instead.

Apart from that: I would love to use captured enemy sieges!

RDMyers65b14_ESO · May 2016

In my guild, it is preferable to run more than one siege. If you are not running more than one, you are inefficient. I tend to run two ballista or three trebs. (Hi @Nahz, what's for dinner?) I am also the siege pack rat for my guild. Half of my inventory is siege equipment. I almost always carry a few rams and a dozen or more oils to drop when needed. These days, I also have forward camps slotted. I have anti personnel seige which I drop on a regular basis. I don't mind a lower level hopping on the siege, but I do mind the V16 who was in the top 5 on the alliance leaderboards hopping on my siege to turn it away from the keep. Grrrr.

Dear ZOS, please make siege stackable.

Skyy · May 2016

No keep it as it is, anyone can use

I would prefer owner priority like most people seem to be saying. Sometimes you put one down for a toon that is new to PvP or you want someone to take over when you die or during one of the frequent crashes. But not being able to get your siege back, especially when someone clearly doesn't know what they are doing is a pain in the butt.

Turelus · May 2016

No keep it as it is, anyone can use

I would rather keep it as it is, sure it's annoying when someone steals your weapon but the ability to also place multiple weapons for random players to use during sieges isn't something I want to trade for that.

bitaken · May 2016

Restrict use to owners group

Dropping another reply in here - and sticking to my "in group" response.

Had an incident today where DC were shooting a really bad wall to take a keep. I decided I would open a hole in a better spot to help and some complete noob decided I should not be shooting that wall and jumped on and off my 3 trebs turning them and spamming me in tells about how I should be supporting the alliance...not subordinating it with my own siege.

Now, the guy was an idiot and demonstrated it in tells. I am not overly concerned about this particular incident. However, it demonstrates that anyone able to jump on anyone's siege is just not a good idea and leads to conflict. Conflict that can easily be avoided. This is not a "wahh he took my siege" as much as it is - WTF I have no recourse for dealing with this complete noob who decides he doesn't like what I am doing and is going to stop me - and there is literally nothing I can do but watch as the siege fails (which it did) and I can only stand there infuriated trying to convince this guy that what I am doing is right and he needs to buzz off with his "I made 150K AP today I know better than you" nub attitude. And, yes, that is exactly what he said. Trying to explain to me I don't know better just because I am AR 40 and have made over 30 million AP and taken thousands of keeps in this game. Absolutely infuriating that I had no recourse and had to watch it fail because of one mentally handicapped person stopping me from finishing what I started.