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. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Mapping Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    777
    How is it "trashy"? Setting up offensive siege is supposed to give an advantage. It makes perfect sense that knights need to be nearby so they can quickly respond to an opening. Why on earth would you be using a ballista to shoot only where your team can't go? I thought you were saying offensive siege was an important tool to end a game when you have more control of it, if bomb bolts can teamkill it would just as easily sabotage your push. Usually when you have forward siege you have to make a choice with each bolt, shoot at the structure, or shoot at the fighting? If your knights are doing well and as a result, have climbed up their base, then the structure and the fighting are in the same place, why should you be punished for that? It is a little harder to push against a ballista, that's pretty much the point, you lose control of mid and the enemy has the opportunity to set up there to make it easier for them to win. They are rewarded for their conquest. It's not impossible to come back by any means, but it is harder, and will take some good plays.

    I guess I might have misunderstood your idea of "defensive" siege use. I see it as a ballista set up on your tallest tower that you built over flag on buildphase, that makes it impossible to build anything in the no man's land. That's what I think is the actual problem, a game begins, one team gets the advantage and starts setting up forward structures, then when both teams set up a ballista on their base, all the terrain past the flags becomes a desolate crater. If you're foolish enough to build anything there, it gets demolished in a matter of seconds from the completely safe base ballista.

    I still don't see why you think the black area one is infeasible. It's true that it wouldn't work on every map, but I think it would definitely fix some problems.

    And yeah the air time nerf is to deal with the ridiculous range, and while it might be easier to nerf the range outright, it would still get more and more range with height, which doesn't really fix the problem of desolate crater middle areas ruled over by a few massive flag towers with siege. The air time nerf should fix that.

    Ways to reasonably regain ground to fend off ballista:
    • Play especially well, dodge/break some bolts, and win the fight from a disadvantage.
    • Bombjump over there and mess it up.
    • Don't even try to regain ground, just snipe it with bomb arrows
    Most of the options are difficult, but when the enemy has siege set up and is blowing up your shit you're supposed to be at a disadvantage. That's their point as game enders. It isn't impossible to come back from that though.
     
    TBA_LordKnight likes this.
  2. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,277
    If you cant realize that the advantage is the complete destruction of their base then i cant help you. Why you need knights ontop of the flagroom and bomb bolts to make it completely impossible to repel is beyond me. It just plain isnt fair anywhere on the map to have a machine that destroys the enemy plus structure but not your teammates that are in the same area. it shouldnt happen at mid and it most definitely shouldnt be happening on the enemies base.
    My definition is where it is used to defend your teammates by spamming it at the enemy's push. I see the teamkill as a solution because it will discourage spamming it at the middle of fighting and if you do you wont be able to afford more bolts.
    Why would you add something that doesnt fix all the problems? I do not think it is feasible to work on every map and it will be like old trapblocks, the community will whine because it doesnt have good functionality(specifically on some maps). What would the hangtime be? It sounds pretty interesting, but i dont know the difference between a straight horizontal shot and an upward angle one. Maybe making it only be able to fall y blocks would be easier/ more logical so you force it off the tower. I just feel like a straight horizontal shot has as long of a hangtime as a shortly charged one facing upward does.

    Still though, Siege should not be coupled with enemy fighters in any circumstance. It ruins any chance to gain that ground back because you'd have to kill the enemy knights while dodging bombs and facing an unfair ground advantage(this is for siege spam at the enemy's base i think we both agree mid spam is just bad). My issue with a siege machine not teamkilling is that it makes it alot easier to neuter the attack force, when it should be destroying the enemy's base/workshops to force them into submission. I dont feel ballistas with enemy support in the same area give a fair chance to stop anything. Why does your team have to be at the top of the enemy's base? why cant you spam the front portion of it and open that up while the team atop the flagroom to wait/camp.
     
  3. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Mapping Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    777
    Look, when you're getting rekt and your fighters all get demolished and the enemies have a bunch of space to set up shop right outside your base, it's supposed to be kind of an "o shit" moment, when they start setting up a ballista. If you can't come back and swing the fight your way somehow, yes, you are in a really bad position and will probably lose. But it's obviously not impossible to come back from that, there are a ton of ways to ward off siege, and yes, they mostly involve a fast response and some tight gameplay, it isn't even that hard to just shoot a couple bomb arrows at it. You're painting it like a ballista can destroy an entire squadron of knights and destroy the base at the same time, which is only true in pretty specific situations. Like I was saying, most of the time you can choose to shoot your ballista at either the base or the enemy fighters. Teams don't instantly surrender the moment a siege engine comes out, but if nobody deals with it, it accelerates the losing team's downfall. This is basically the good part of siege. I guess I'll just keep stressing that setting up siege right in front of an enemy base is supposed to tilt the game in your favor, that is what it does. It's a reward for winning a fight, it adds to the sort of snowball effect. So in that context, it isn't supposed to be 100% fair! The game isn't supposed to be 100% fair all the time, when a team plays better than the other side for a while, that translates into an in-game advantage. I don't think this is a problem.

    I get that, but I think any solution that doesn't involve making it really easy to accidentally teamkill someone when there's low communication (which is basically every pub game) should be sought out. If you don't think it's fair that siege can be used to kill enemies, and to be honest I think it's too strong as well, it would be much better to simply nerf its effectiveness at doing that more directly by reducing its damage, or making it more readable as a weapon by adding animation or some other visual indication or even just a sound that reveals when a siege engine is charging up a shot. That would make it feel like such less bullshit, and that's why other solutions should be sought rather than making it easier to be instagibbed by your teammates.

    ...There is literally nothing that would fix all the problems. Why wouldn't you add something that fixes some of the problems and doesn't seem like it would introduce any more problems? It wouldn't work on every map, yes, but it wouldn't harm the maps that it wouldn't work on.

    And yeah I guess the airtime thing might not really be elaborate enough. The idea I think was to encourage direct placement rather than bolt rain from afar, and I think it would do that to an extent but I think high-arcing shots have their place. I think if the bolt exploded if it got to a height below its ballista (or at a certain distance below the ballista), that would probably work better. You'd basically have to put them on the ground, but that seems fine to me, they feel less untouchable when they're on the ground, and more fair. But at the same time, I think it's natural to want to put siege atop a tower, so I'm kind of conflicted about this... I'm gonna need to bust out the ol' mspaint sometime to try to draw siege range restrictions that look fair and could be implemented
     
  4. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,277
    let me use your logic for a minute. We shouldnt nerf tower ballistas because the game isnt always fair. Why shouldnt you be able to have a bally at the top of a giant tower(where bomb arrows cant break the bally because it is too high). The whole point of the game is to progress and if you let them get this giant tower with a bally on it then you should lose.

    -----

    I really like the teamkill as a mechanic because it makes the siege attack an enemy area and not one next to your teammates. I really dont like your arguement that it should stay the same just because it is a means to end games. Leveling the enemy's base should end any pub game. Honestly i feel like alittle teamkilling will be adjustable. Pubbies somehow adjusted to mines and they were cancerous for the first month. Also, i do not want to nerf its ability to kill the enemy my issue is having zero chance of making up any ground just because a ballista is in play. The disadvantage of being against someone with a ballista should be the destruction of all your forward structures. I like that as a way of clearing through the weaker team but i dont like it being used in for fights. Just spamming bomb bolts in a group of red and blue knights and only killing the blue ones is very bad mechanic. When you do that you are literally only using siege to stop their fighter's push(if 2 pub groups are fighting the side with the ballista defensively spamming will always win). Ballistas are the only thing ingame at the moment that you can freaking feed off of by just spamming. Not only will teamkilling make it so you have to focus on their base and not just mindlessly throwing bolts at mid, but it will also punish you for being stupid. If you kill any teammates you will lose a crap ton of coins and that is the check. If you use a ballista stupidly you wont be able to afford to continue.
    Any push mounted against a team with a ballista will be total crap because they will just spam defensive bolts. The only true options ingame to stopping ballistas is to bombjump over or spam bomb arrows. 1/2 the time bomb arrows arent an option because it is too high up/shitmap. I dont really see bombjumping as an option because it is so freaking easy to stop. I remember ingame as builder how easy it was to just ram into someone on their way upward and force them down. It is so much easier to just spam slash and do the same.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2016
  5. Geti

    Geti Please avoid PMing me (poke a mod instead) THD Team Administrator Global Moderator

    Messages:
    3,730
    Just to round out the HUGE INCREDIBLY LONG ARGUMENTATIVE POSTS THAT WILL OBVIOUSLY CHANGE THE OTHER GUYS' OPINION ON THIS MATTER WE ALL FEEL DEEPLY ABOUT

    Ballistae, bolts, and the bomb bolts upgrade all cost more next build. Obviously this doesn't affect TTH, but I don't have time or drive to change things there at the moment.
     
  6. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,277
    How much more? also would the upgrade cost more gold? imo that's a bad change
     
  7. Geti

    Geti Please avoid PMing me (poke a mod instead) THD Team Administrator Global Moderator

    Messages:
    3,730
    Yes it would, 100 gold.
    [​IMG]
    Should make it less of a "default" choice over building tunnels and will slow down the spam of them while not making them totally inaccessible. We'll see how it goes, I dont have time for a more in-depth change and team damage is not something we're really happy to consider at this point, it's just more griefing/complaining potential.
     
  8. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,277
    A hundred coins?!?!!!?! For just 6 shots of bomb bolts, that seems insane. I guess increasing the price will slow down the spam because it just wont be affordable anymore.
     
  9. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Mapping Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    777
    It's four bombs worth. A little less than a keg. Two bomb arrows. When you think about how safe and easy it is to shoot six bomb bolts, it still seems like a pretty good way to destroy shit. Assuming nobody is slashing your ~15 coin bolts :P
     
    Geti likes this.
  10. Hospitalizer

    Hospitalizer Shopkeep Stealer

    Messages:
    57
    Adding the ability to archer grapple on to siege and pull it off towers like in knights with grapples mod would be nice :X3:
     
    daskew87 likes this.
  11. Lava

    Lava Former Lag King Staff Alumni Donator Tester

    Messages:
    230
    Well you can shoot them off their platform with a shotgun arrow if you do it like 3-7 times (depends on how much of a platform it is on)
     
  12. Blue_Tiger

    Blue_Tiger Bison Rider Tester

    Messages:
    899
    Just here to refresh the salt. Was playing a game on an official server and I see this situation arise:

    [​IMG]

    This is after they destroyed the top of our offensive tower and our tunnel. Our arrows cannot reach their catapult and if we try to build up they will just destroy it with ease (not that there's any teamwork in pubs anyway).

    So I ended up ninjaing up the tower with 3 bomb arrows, barely avoiding death by knights falling all over me - I kill both of their catapults (they made another), survive a bit longer and eventually die. I come back and what do I see?

    [​IMG]

    I really think that siege needs some nerfing both offensively and especially defensively.
     
  13. 8x

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

    Messages:
    1,314
    Limiting the amount of Ballistas and Catapults always sounded good in my opinion. Bomb-Bolt spammy Ballistas are not always reachable with bomb or normal arrows, as most of the players claim.
     
  14. asger75

    asger75 Bison Rider

    Messages:
    232
    I think siege weapons should have a limit on how high up they can be