Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Pre-Alpha 2.0: Siege Perilous overview - Official discussion thread


Recommended Posts

I think this is going to be an interesting test, I hope there will be videos of it.

 

My general hope for siege warfare is to be very much anti zerg.  Meaning that it should be about organization, teamwork, and supply lines.

GW2 had one of the worse siege systems I've ever had the displeasure of experiencing, where you could poof siege out of nowhere wherever you damn pleased, so long as you had enough players to carry the resources.  Meaning more players, the stronger your siege was, and it was so simple, quick and easy it effectively made zergs unstoppable.  If you had more players, you won by default.  It was exceedingly tedious and boring.

 

 

Rather what I'd love to see is :

A: Various siege equipment with different roles for both defending and attacking.  Some defending siege for usage inside defense, like spear and arrow traps.

B: Anti-personal siege that will lay waste to an unorganized or unprepared force, regardless of their number. (like Arrow Carts and Oil Pots)

C: An ammo system for any siege that shoots, so that maintaining a siege on either side is fundamentally about supply lines.

D: Building siege takes time, and isn't expedited by simply having more players.

 

So if a large force shows up at a castle with some siege but no supply lines, all the defenders would need to do is hold out an wait for them to run out of ammo.

A small force should always be able to beat a numerically superior force if they have better organization and supplies.  And defenders advantage should always count for something, but not always be the sole deciding factor, as there should never be only a single deciding factor.  Avoid first order optimal strategies if you would.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here's what you can expect in Pre-Alpha 2.0: Siege Perilous     FULL STORY

Don't worry about equipment availability, there are armor and weapon racks for both teams that you can F to interact with and will issue each player 1 set of stuff per life.  

Yup! plan is to get Ballista and other defensive vehicle style weapons on the walls as we continue tweaking.  We also want more offensive vehicles other than the catapults. (I'd even like a type of si

Don't worry about equipment availability, there are armor and weapon racks for both teams that you can F to interact with and will issue each player 1 set of stuff per life.

 

Deceptively simple, yet elegant. :)

This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

D: Building siege takes time, and isn't expedited by simply having more players.

I wholeheartedy agree with everything but this. To be precise, I simply mean that a greater number of players should probably expedite the assembly/construction of siege equipment to some degree greater than zero. This does not mean that 100 people build siege faster than 10, and 500 build it even faster. Obviously at some point, the process is saturated. Also, their mere presence shouldn't accelerate anything. They should have to apply effort/resources. Maybe expediting concstruction (again, within reasonable limits) costs extra resources? Or maybe people who help construct siege equipment are left fatigued for a short duration, so the trade-off is that you lose them as fully-capable combatants? Dunno.

 

I just wanted to be clear, though: greater numbers should bestow advantages. Just not all/infinite advantages. To accomplish this, you don't remove the sharpened edge, but instead simply add another sharpened edge.

 

Attacking a wall with 10,000 zerg soldiers should result in a severely increased effectiveness of the firepots and such, since the extreme clustering of the zerg blob makes sure everyone shares the flames. :)

Edited by Lephys

This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedy agree with everything but this. To be precise, I simply mean that a greater number of players should probably expedite the assembly/construction of siege equipment to some degree greater than zero. This does not mean that 100 people build siege faster than 10, and 500 build it even faster. Obviously at some point, the process is saturated. Also, their mere presence shouldn't accelerate anything. They should have to apply effort/resources. Maybe expediting concstruction (again, within reasonable limits) costs extra resources? Or maybe people who help construct siege equipment are left fatigued for a short duration, so the trade-off is that you lose them as fully-capable combatants? Dunno.

 

I just wanted to be clear, though: greater numbers should bestow advantages. Just not all/infinite advantages. To accomplish this, you don't remove the sharpened edge, but instead simply add another sharpened edge.

 

Attacking a wall with 10,000 zerg soldiers should result in a severely increased effectiveness of the firepots and such, since the extreme clustering of the zerg blob makes sure everyone shares the flames. :)

I agree with this sentiment.  I'm ok with siege being expedited to an extent, just not with it being possible to be built instantaneously.

Like say whenever you build something, siege or building, whatever, you have a set number of building slots.  A player (or npc) can fill that slot and consume resources from the stockpile at a rate depending on their specific crafting skill level.

 

So say a catapult has 5 slots available, you need to fill at least 1 slot for it to build at all, and if you fill all 5 slots with equally skills players (or npcs), then it would build at a percentage faster, with diminishing returns.  Say like 100% with one player, 140% with 2, 165% 3, 180% 4, 190% 5.  With more so if everyone building it is highly skilled in doing so.

But even with highly skilled players building something, the minimal amount of time to build should be fairly lengthy, like a catapult is going to take at least 20mins to build.  Where as a arrow cart might take 5-10 mins, and a trebuchet could take as long as 40mins minimum.

 

So often it's in your best interests as either the defenders or attackers to build your siege ahead of time and move it to where you need it.

 

 

Although not every siege should be mobile.  Trebuchets could be not only fixed point, but fixed angle, turning at best 45 degrees from side to side.  But in return they have the longest range and firepower of any siege.  So there would be risk reward if your the attackers trying to build siege on the defenders doorstep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant wait till the siege. Already are Crowfessors and Champions dancing their dance of death ad mist the siege.

Also cant wait to get my hands on the ranger and see how things go down as well as a welcome change of pace from the hunger-dome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sort of hope the trees are just stand in mechanics for supply lines.  Meaning if attackers or defenders cut off your supply lines (destroy your trees in the test) then bad things happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All sounds great but personally I wish ACE could arrange that all players on the same side would have a voice chat channel supplied by the client. People with head set can chat and those without mics could at least listen in. Trying to do a siege (attacking or defending) really requires co-ordination to be effective and fun as possible. Already existing guild members will try to group together in the lobby and have a massive advantage since they probably already have a TeamSpeak or Ventrilo voice chat system.

 

Sorry ACE, but the current text chat window just doesn't cut it at all, unless your standing around and doing nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All sounds great but personally I wish ACE could arrange that all players on the same side would have a voice chat channel supplied by the client. People with head set can chat and those without mics could at least listen in. Trying to do a siege (attacking or defending) really requires co-ordination to be effective and fun as possible. Already existing guild members will try to group together in the lobby and have a massive advantage since they probably already have a TeamSpeak or Ventrilo voice chat system.

 

Sorry ACE, but the current text chat window just doesn't cut it at all, unless your standing around and doing nothing else.

They aren't going to add in-game voice chat for a test game mode that won't be in the actual game. It just isn't worth the time and effort.

 

There will be guilds on both sides of each siege, each with their own voice comms, so neither side will have an advantage in that regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't going to add in-game voice chat for a test game mode that won't be in the actual game. It just isn't worth the time and effort.

 

There will be guilds on both sides of each siege, each with their own voice comms, so neither side will have an advantage in that regard.

 

Except for those of us who are playing but not part of said guilds or are solo players. We get left out and stuck staring at the Text chat in case they bother to tell us the plan or following in the back hoping what they decide to do makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for those of us who are playing but not part of said guilds or are solo players. We get left out and stuck staring at the Text chat in case they bother to tell us the plan or following in the back hoping what they decide to do makes sense.

Yea, that does suck. I'm kinda on the side of "they won't put it in because too much work at the moment", but at the same time it would be easier for people not already associated with other players. In my case I have a guild, but normally I don't (Crowfall seems to be a start of many firsts with me), so I know how it feels to be pretty much alone despite being part of a small or large group. Usually text-chat fixes this, but CF's chat is rather underdeveloped, which leads me to believe that Voice Chat is EXACTLY what they want in this game, otherwise text-chat would be further along IMO.

Can we have a Bard? If not as an Archetype or Promotion, then maybe a Discipline?


i-3ZQNFxh.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

you're supposed to test...

 

noone gives a custard whether you lose, win, roflstomp your enemy or whatever...

 

stop asking for nonsense that's not relevant for the final game.

 

If you can't "have fun", then don't play, but stop wasting their time with these useless suggestions

Link to post
Share on other sites

you're supposed to test...

 

noone gives a custard whether you lose, win, roflstomp your enemy or whatever...

 

stop asking for nonsense that's not relevant for the final game.

 

If you can't "have fun", then don't play, but stop wasting their time with these useless suggestions

 

I'm not sure if you are referring to my wish/regret that ACE doesn't have integrated voice chat which would make coordinating the siege tests (both attacking and defending) alot easier and more effective.

 

But i never once said it would not be fun, just more difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you're supposed to test...

 

noone gives a custard whether you lose, win, roflstomp your enemy or whatever...

 

stop asking for nonsense that's not relevant for the final game.

 

If you can't "have fun", then don't play, but stop wasting their time with these useless suggestions

Since you're post has 4 posts above it referring to Voice Chat vs. Text Chat, I'm assuming you're speaking of the same. If not, please forgive me.

 

But how is it a useless suggestion, or irrelevant to the final game? Whether a good text chat or use of in-game voice chat, I see it as VERY relevant to a game that is going to be a cross of PVP, Survival and Strategy. It's far from a useless suggestion and it's one they should at the very least consider a possibility, if not at launch then at some point in the future of CF. A functioning text chat is relevant (and incredibly important) for any MMO, voice chat is simply a viable option.

 

It can be fun without it too, but considering a big part of CF involves community (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ8fOOP0DLs&feature=youtu.be), a functioning form of chat is essential, and simply relying on people to use outside chat-rooms is foolish (not that people don't do it, but not EVERYONE does).

Can we have a Bard? If not as an Archetype or Promotion, then maybe a Discipline?


i-3ZQNFxh.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you're post has 4 posts above it referring to Voice Chat vs. Text Chat, I'm assuming you're speaking of the same. If not, please forgive me.

 

But how is it a useless suggestion, or irrelevant to the final game? Whether a good text chat or use of in-game voice chat, I see it as VERY relevant to a game that is going to be a cross of PVP, Survival and Strategy. It's far from a useless suggestion and it's one they should at the very least consider a possibility, if not at launch then at some point in the future of CF. A functioning text chat is relevant (and incredibly important) for any MMO, voice chat is simply a viable option.

 

It can be fun without it too, but considering a big part of CF involves community (

), a functioning form of chat is essential, and simply relying on people to use outside chat-rooms is foolish (not that people don't do it, but not EVERYONE does).

In gw2 there are  plenty of public teamspeak servers that guilds would use to coordinate with pugs. I'd expect something similar here. Implementing voice chat isn't as simple as "just put it in", and takes time. The voice chat in DCUO hardly got used and was extremely low quality and obnoxious. Basically if you're not willing to put in the extra "effort" to download ts or use discord (which is brain dead simple), you're not actually interested in coordinating.

Edited by helix
Link to post
Share on other sites

In gw2 there are  plenty of public teamspeak servers that guilds would use to coordinate with pugs. I'd expect something similar here. Implementing voice chat isn't as simple as "just put it in", and takes time. The voice chat in DCUO hardly got used and was extremely low quality and obnoxious. Basically if you're not willing to put in the extra "effort" to download ts or use discord (which is brain dead simple), you're not actually interested in coordinating.

 

I have both Ventrilo and TeamSpeak installed. However I would potentially have to get the connection info from which ever guild I happened to be matched up with during each siege test (we are somewhat randomly grouped up in case you forgot) I was part of. And that's assuming they would be willing to share their server connection info.

 

We will just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both Ventrilo and TeamSpeak installed. However I would potentially have to get the connection info from which ever guild I happened to be matched up with during each siege test (we are somewhat randomly grouped up in case you forgot) I was part of. And that's assuming they would be willing to share their server connection info.

 

We will just have to wait and see how it plays out.

 

icic... so it hasn't sunk in yet, that you do not need to coordinate to test.

 

Let me ask you this: Why do you think people here are telling you that this feature is not needed? What's your rationalisation for it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In gw2 there are  plenty of public teamspeak servers that guilds would use to coordinate with pugs. I'd expect something similar here. Implementing voice chat isn't as simple as "just put it in", and takes time. The voice chat in DCUO hardly got used and was extremely low quality and obnoxious. Basically if you're not willing to put in the extra "effort" to download ts or use discord (which is brain dead simple), you're not actually interested in coordinating.

Don't misunderstand, I completely agree that anyone who wishes to coordinate should download TS or Discord. I'm not debating that. But in this section of testing groups are determined by the system, NOT by individuals, and so not everyone is going to go to the same chat. Let's say two opposing guilds (both from previous games and, presumably, in CF when it releases) join forces in the test. Why would they go to the other guild's TS for 1 match? And, more to my point on "community" not everyone in a campaign is going to be part of your guild. If someone wishes to trade with you, why force them to go onto another entire TS forum just to do that and then go back to their previous TS chatroom? All one would need to accomplish this is a functioning text-chat, no voice chat necessary, but it's still an option.

 

For coordination, yes, I recommend getting onto a fully separate chat such as TS and Discord. But for communication with people outside of your forum, a functioning chat (which is a term I would not use for current CF chat) is still needed. Not saying we need all the bells and whistles here, just functioning. Basic of basics.

 

EDIT: Also showing how new I am to TS, I didn't know there were public servers on TS. I really need to play with that thing more :/ Are public servers player-made or supplied by the game?

Edited by shadowfang1992

Can we have a Bard? If not as an Archetype or Promotion, then maybe a Discipline?


i-3ZQNFxh.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Agree that the current Crowfall chat box is extremely awkward and so annoying to use most people don't bother. I hope ACE will put some dev time into improving the text chat system because in a CW you will encounter friendlies/enemies in game, and have no other way to communicate in that moment.

 

2. Disagree that Crowfall should integrate a voice chat. It wasn't in the scope of time and budget for the core game. Most existing guilds already have a preferred voice that they want to maintain control of, and it's so easy now for anyone to set up a Discord for faction or random groups. There is already a general Crowfall discord that anyone can use.

tiPrpwh.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...