1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hey Guest, is it this your first time on the forums?

    Visit the Beginner's Box

    Introduce yourself, read some of the ins and outs of the community, access to useful links and information.

    Dismiss Notice

[1796] Siege changes

Discussion in 'Classes & Mechanics' started by PUNK123, Mar 31, 2016.

Tags:
?

Siege changes

  1. leave it as it is

  2. make it harm teammates

  3. increase the cost of bolts

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,249
    I can see siege as something necessary to ending a game that you control, but too often in pubs it is used defensively. My suggestion is to make siege teamkill as a means of discouraging its defensive spam(ie both teams just spamming bolts at mid). I would also like to see the ammo get a price increase. Ultimately i would like to see siege as a means of ending the game, not prolonging it.
     
    Potatobird likes this.
  2. Chukka

    Chukka Ballista Bolt Thrower Staff Alumni
    1. Zen - [Zen] - (Invite Only)
    2. Aphelion's Roleplay

    Messages:
    282
    Pubs will continue to spam shots from the top of towers but now they will be harming their team.

    They are put on top of towers in the first place because they are so weak and the user is vulnerable. If they provided more protection to the person using it--and had a health buff--I think they would see more use in the battlefield.

    Timers could also be placed on bomb bolts to eliminate their tower use completely. IMO bomb bolts should be nerfed and regular bolts should be buffed. Nobody wastes their time with regular bolts because they are weak as shit.

    I think you should be able to buy regular bolts or bomb bolts from the shop rather than having a direct upgrade. Regular bolts could break a few blocks in a straight line, for sniping unstable structures. Bomb bolts would do more wide/"AOE" damage.
     
  3. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,249
    there are always going to pub players that do not understand the mechanics and you cant turn down a suggestion because of that. Atleast once a week i have to spam in all caps at a player to not destroy our front structures(because they want to k/d farm, coin farm, or just dont know how the thing works). Honestly siege should be used to destroy, not something spammed to "stop" the enemy or help out a teammate in combat(ie if a bomb bolts hits both me and and the enemy knight we should both die). I just dont see why it should be a viable strategy to spam bolts at knights, archers , or builders to stop a push in the middle of the field; it is a siege machine after all and if it is being used correctly(to rape the enemy's base) then there shouldnt be any real teamkilling. If it used incorrectly there should be a consequence for both teams, not just the enemy.


    I'm not understanding how the timers would work and i dont want the ballista removed from the top of towers. They are a powerful weapon to end the game and i think they should serve that purpose.
     
  4. Blue_Tiger

    Blue_Tiger Bison Rider Tester

    Messages:
    899
    I'd love the ability to TK with ballista. Maybe I'd actually start using siege.
     
  5. Vermilicious

    Vermilicious Ballista Bolt Thrower

    Messages:
    232
    I think siege vehicles are a mixed bag. They're fairly costly; gold for building the shop, then buying the vehicle itself, and lastly the ammo. They are very effective at destroying structures, but they are difficult to get to the front since they don't handle terrain well, and they can easily be captured. The result is that people place them on elevated platforms where they are more protected (requiring additional costs of building that platform). When a team is short on territory, that platform is typically at the top of the main defensive structure, and, yes, it becomes more of a defensive deal instead. They're much less effective in that sense however, and a ballista spawn with a potential huge drop down, isn't at all a good forward spawn for teammates, since they have to spend time getting down, or even losing health just jumping down. Catapults' ammo dissolve after a certain distance, I believe, so they're even less useful. So, do they need a nerf, or are they already an unattractive defensive measure? I'm leaning towards the latter.

    (Reminds me how annoying it is that sometimes you can't choose a place to spawn, and you can never change your mind after having picked one. I just hate spawning at badly placed ballistas.)
     
  6. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,249
    I'm honestly not understanding what issue you have with the "nerf". Why should siege be used to spam at mid and killfarm while people are fighting. Let me make it crystal clear what i want and why, I want siege vehicles to teamkill because i do not like that it is used defensively. What do i mean by that? I mean that people spam it from the top of a tower at fighting knights, archers or builders(why should siege be used to spam at players in combat and onlly harm the enemy?). I feel like that is the real problem with siege, and i dont feel like anyone is bringing up any viable reason why siege shouldnt teamkill. As it is right now, it ruins the game with its defensive spam. Also, im not against buffing siege, increasing its health, or improving its mechnics, with any of those changes i feel like this one is needed.

    edit: for the people who think teamkilling would actually be an issue:

    teamkills lose the shooter money which would stop him from affording more bolts to spam(so he couldnt just spam crap at mid all game thru fighters and would actually have to be smart about it; He would have to actually siege the enemies base.)
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2016
  7. Psiklaw

    Psiklaw Ballista Bolt Thrower

    Messages:
    179
    after meditating on the issue for 12 hours straight under the influence of aromatic flowers i got to a conclusion that balances perfectly the problems of siege:

    - ballista: normal bolts decay time must be HIGHER so they serve the purpose of climbing. they destroy platforms very well but they need to stay put even more time than they do now. Now, for BOMB BOLTS I agree with CHUKKA: they should be bought as an item. I would REMOVE the gold cost to upgrade the bolts, instead you can buy either piercing or bomb bolts but u need 50 mat_gold to deploy a ballista. This helps ballista spam.Also bomb bolts should cost like 100 denars for 12 bolts. this way you have something as destructive as a keg (actually more than a keg) but you need gold AND coins to use it
     
  8. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,249
    isnt that what archers are for?
    I think it's a lame solution to just raise the price by 70 coins. As it takes so much effort to actually get a ballista up, and the 12 bolts really only equate to 6. You'd literally only be able to use siege to coinfarm by killing people if it was changed this way and i dont like the idea of an item ingame used only for camping and killing with.
     
  9. Psiklaw

    Psiklaw Ballista Bolt Thrower

    Messages:
    179
    because right now its not used to camping and/or killing by all means...
    also the price would be rised by 70 coins + 50 :gold_mat: for deploying the ballista. i dont think its hard to deploy it and in many pubs u can see easily 3-4 ballistas up spamming like crazy to an extent in which its impossible to stay in mid
     
  10. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,249
    I like ballistas how they are. Making ballys immediately cost 50 gold to deploy will negate their use as a spawnpoint(or make them expensive as hell). Honestly im not seeing any better suggestions for ballistaes, so ill probably make an actual suggestion thread soon. Regular bolts have their use and dont need a buff, they are more cheap and pierce thru people. I dont feel like they need a buff. Bomb bolts have their use as well, utter destruction of the enemy and the only part i want to change about that is its stagnating spam(you shouldnt be able to spam the ballistae to defend your teammates ect and you should have to be smart with it).
     
  11. Vermilicious

    Vermilicious Ballista Bolt Thrower

    Messages:
    232
    Well I'm generally for team kills, just because it's more fun. I virtually banged my head against the wall when the devs decided saws shouldn't kill team mates. I just don't see a particular problem with siege engines in particular.
     
    8x likes this.
  12. 8x

    8x Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la Realité Forum Moderator Tester Official Server Admin
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    1,310
    Perhaps bomb bolts could collide with the top of the map, to avoid those unreachable ballistas bombing your flag castle while 25ing. As vermilicious said, those tower ballistas are not always a good solution (other than for bomb bolting) and and it's worse than a system of teleporters, as mostly you need shops around again for your archers and knights to attack with items.
     
    PUNK123 and noodlefishpizza like this.
  13. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,249
    That would a ginormous nerf because alot of popular maps are pretty short in height
     
  14. Vamist

    Vamist THD Team THD Team Tester

    Messages:
    532
    The more people spawn at a ballistas should remove some of its health, meaning 20 people can spawn per ballista, shooting bolts from it take away small bits of health from it, bomb arrows remove more health from it. - my idea

    Edit: fixed spelling - I still failed, but meh
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2016
    PUNK123 likes this.
  15. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,249
    i assume you meant bomb bolts or else it wouldnt make sense. Honestly sounds really thought out though costpervalue would be too high with kag's price right now. If your suggestion were to be implemented i think cost of ballys would have to be lowered.
     
  16. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    769
    The OP is spot on in terms of the problem, in my opinion. Thank you for starting this topic. The trick is that it's hard to make siege less useful as a defensive tower topper that makes walking outside of your base as a builder 100% pointless unless you're gonna tunnel, while still leaving it available as an offensive way to end a game. The only suggestions in here that I think would do this well are this
    because getting bomb bolts that you can't even see coming rained down upon you from half the map away sucks (they really need to bring back the sky, if only visually),
    and also this
    which I'm guessing means that bolts explode after a certain amount of air time. I like this idea. I think it could work, but has some downsides. It requires in-your-face ballista placement, which is good. The problem with that is... well, just read the next paragraph. Also it might not be the best way to fix this issue because it limits player options, which should be avoided; a way you could fix that downside (and make it less depressing when a bolt falls short) would be to make bolts that explode midair split into flaming debris that falls roughly along the path the bolt was travelling and damages + burns enemies. With that addition there's more choice, and actually might make using siege a less braindead task. It would be hard to implement probably, but would be pretty cool.

    The other HUGE problem with bold siege placement is that you're way more likely to lose control of it, and when you do, there's suddenly three knights poking it with their swords making an absolutely obscene amount of money. The coins you get for damaging siege should be either drastically reduced or removed entirely. Perhaps you could still earn money for siege, but only by standing near it when it's captured. This would make fighting over siege more higher stakes and less bullshit. You wouldn't have to sit there and watch the enemies rake in the coin simply by tagging the ballista with their sword while attacking someone. You'd fight over siege in order to prevent its destruction or capture. Having to fight over siege shouldn't be punishment by itself.

    Other semi-relevant thoughts:
    • When siege catches fire, it should set fire to those using/nearby the siege
    • The bomb bolt / piercing bolt discussion is a different topic, and who cares about piercing bolts anyway, they should just be removed
    • I think Vamist's idea is okay too. Kinda reminds me of this stuff I posted somewhere else that may or may not make any sense:
    Here's my theory:
    -Usually when you set up Offensive Siege : It is in a temporary location that is somewhat vulerable, and you're trying to blow up something quickly and maybe take a victory. (I'll admit that the crazy range can sometimes mean the location really doesn't have to be that close to the enemy or vulnerable.)
    -Usually when you set up Defensive Siege : It is on top of your best and tallest tower, in the safest place it can be. Because it's farther to the back of the map, it is not in danger as often as offensive siege, and may sit there for ten times as long just chillin', ready to be reloaded and take down whatever structures the enemy fools try to make.

    So what if all siege was inherently temporary? What if you had to deploy a siege engine knowing that it would not get to sit there all game? As in, each siege engine is on a timer, and when that time is up the siege vanishes, perhaps leaving a little pile of wood or whatnot. That wouldn't make much of a difference for the offensive siege, it dies pretty fast already. But you couldn't just leave a cata on top of your tower indefinitely, it would have to be in reaction to enemy structures, and siege can be dangerous to set up, giving attackers a better window of opportunity.
    • omg pls no ballista teamkilling, it's bullshit enough to get instagibbed by an enemy's bomb bolt that you didn't see coming from the pitch black sky
    • Maybe bomb bolts shouldn't instakill. I think 2-3 hearts and heavy knockback for bomb bolts would be better.
    • The gold ore cost for ballistas is an interesting idea, considering that ballistas currently give the same offensive push boost that a tunnel does for no gold ore cost.

    Edit: Bolded actual ideas so as the thread devolves into arguments, it's easier to pick out the suggestions
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2016
    Vamist likes this.
  17. Lava

    Lava Former Lag King Staff Alumni Tester Donator

    Messages:
    230
    Id say make bomb bolts cost more like 500 :stone_mat:, 1000:wood_mat: and 150:gold_mat: or just make the explosion a bit smaller.
     
  18. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,249
    I really really dislike it when people either dont read what ive written over 3 or dont tell me why my line of reasoning is bad. I am not in favor of someone sitting in a seat and instagibbing teammates, but i feel like it is very much needed change. Currently, a spammer can sit there clicking off bolts into piles of fighters and only kill off the enemy. Why the hell does that make sense to anyone? Siege being used to defend teammates is a very wrong idea. With that being said i realize some people might harm their teammates with siege because they either have a tiny pub brain or they are new(probably both), but i dont feel like it will be a consistent problem because you lose money from killing any teammates. I feel like discouraging people from that specific type of spam is needed and the change wont be that harmful to the team with the ballista because the shooter will not be able to afford to be idiotic.

    Also for point 2, i dont see how only letting the knight survive the bomb bolt rain is a fair fix, as they are the easiest class to stop bolts as it is right now. Archers atleast have bomb arrows to counter the crap, but builders have literally nothing(personally id love to see you not take dmg,from ballistas, behind platforms so i could actually use that as defense).

    As for the black area destroying bomb bolts, i really dont see that as a real possibility what with all maps being setup differently and all the work it would take to balance the map for ballistas(and i do not see anyone giving a single shit about the quality of official server maps afterall cerberosrift is still in the rotation). tho the sky being visible again would be great for defending against bolts.
     
    Clev likes this.
  19. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    769
    I get that it would discourage defensive ballista spam, but I think it's a really bad way of doing it, because like I said it already feels pretty shitty when you instantly die to something you can't see coming, and if you can get instagibbed by ballistas from both sides then that would just really suck. I honestly think that's all the reasoning needed to look for other methods, but it also affects offensive siege, would create a ton of arguments and hostility within teams, and would pretty much be annoying for literally everyone involved. Considering the flight time of a ballista bolt, you could be aiming somewhere not at all near your team and there's still a decent chance of someone walking under it and dying. When you're winning and trying to use siege to end a game, and you're pummelling the flag room, where is your team going to be piling up? On the flag room! How are you supposed to not hit them? It actually might hurt offensive siege more than it would defensive siege. It's not that it was a bad idea, I think it would discourage defensive siege use, I just think it would introduce too many other problems. There's a reason the ability to teamkill is only reserved for instantaneous destructive moments or predictable things like kegs and collapses, and spammable things that are unpredictable and all over the battlefield like bombs and arrows don't affect teammates. When there's a ballista out there's gonna be a lot of bomb bolts flying around and it's gonna be incredibly hard not to teamkill with it.

    If you don't want people to be able to sit in a ballista and accidentally/on purpose teamkill, and you're actually aware of that big downside, then why not focus on discussing other ideas that seem to have fewer downsides? I did read your posts, and I honestly didn't mean that criticism as a personal attack so you don't need to treat it like one, I was just saying that my instinctive reaction to that change is "aw hell naw" even though I can see why you would want it to be made. It's just another perspective and maybe I should have elaborated but I had already written a shitton, so.
    ...

    Anyway, I don't actually think it's much of a problem that siege can be used as a weapon to help win fights. That seems pretty okay to me, it's mostly the complete oppression of mid structures from super safe defensive ballistas that ruin everything. I do think they're a little too strong at that job with the instagib, and I would prefer 2 heart damage to 3 heart damage. Archers already get killed hella fast by everything so what's one more danger? To make it feel more fair when ballistas are used in fights it might help to add some visual/audio indication that a ballista is charging up a shot.
    Yeah that's a pretty good point, on maps where the limit is way too high like that awful one with the sharks it wouldn't even do anything to fix defensive siege. You could argue that it's the maps fault but I think there are probably better ways to fix the deadly massive range ballista rain. The good thing about that idea, however, is that it seems like it would be an easy change to make. It wouldn't work on every map but it would still help on many maps.
     
  20. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,249
    Why would it be fair for abunch of knights to sit on the defending team's flagroom and be backed up by a shitton of bomb bolts? That sounds trashy as hell. There's a huge difference between bomb arrows and bomb bolts(that being that the enemy can shield the bomb arrows and stop all the destruction). Honestly bomb bolts have more of a reason to teamkill because you can aim it anywhere and it instakills anything belonging to the enemy. It needs to have a clear use as destruction of the enemy's crap and side and not just spam wherever they push without consequence. Honestly i feel like it will be like ripping the bandaid off of mines(they will be a difficult adjust but pubbies will respond). Also where would you be aiming it and your teammate just walks under it? maybe the enemies base which you shouldnt be able to camp on top of AND spam bolts at the same time.
    Dont pretend like i took anything personal, you just said it was a bad idea without responding to any of my reasons why i didnt think it would be an actual issue. As for your point, i saw that as an issue the whole time and before i even made the suggest, i balanced the risk over reward and believe it is a much needed change. If your team is being completed retarded with the siege you need to keep them in check(just like if they are destroying your own structure with a ballista during this build). It is still an issue ingame with teammates destroying your own things, but that isnt the ballista's mechanic fault it is the braindead pubbies. I understand teamkilling would be a pretty huge issue if an idiot is manning the ballista but that is YOUR job as a team to manage just like it is your job to stop them from destroying your own structures. If your teammate kills you while you are attacking the enemy id say that is alittle bad for you but alot more fair than only the enemy dying because defensive spam. Think about it, all their shit is being raped by this crappy little thing where the blue bastards are spawning at, and you cant gain any ground to remove it because the turd is spaming bolts at the herd of rushing red knight trying to push thru the blue knights, only for all the red knights to die from the bomb bolts while the blue knights survive the nuke. I already said i didnt understand completely the timer suggestion and i dont feel like the black area one is feasible. The other suggestion of raising the price tremendously i just couldnt see a reason for and based off of what you said he meant by the timers(that they explode bombs atfter a certain amount of time) i dont see what it would really accomplish. What time would you have them explode after? Is it just suppose to be a range nerf? Or is it suppose to be a larger upward angle nerf? Why cant you just nerf those outright?
    If you neuter the attack force how can they reasonably regain ground to fend off the ballista?
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2016