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

What kind of Siege Weapons [or Vehicles] would you like to see?

Recommended Posts

@UnleashTheKraken:

 

To illustrate the gaps in such a line of deduction, I'll tell you why I don't like having damage in a game. Some class is always gonna deal way too much damage. Then the devs'll nerf it, and it'll do too little damage, and people will say "why even bother with that class?". So obviously if we make sure damage isn't in the game, those problems will be avoided. Right? Excellent.

 

Do you see how that doesn't work? Something as general as the sheer ability to glide in some unspecified capacity does not beget an extremely specific set of adjustments that don't work. Maybe a clearer example than damage is attack range. We don't say "I don't wanna see ranged attacks in this game." No... We discuss ways to avoid kiting, and ideaologies to get ranged attacks to play nicely with the other mechanics. Why? Because ranged attacks are fun and neat and can add a lot to the game's tactics and depth.

 

I'm not saying there's no reason not to have gliders in the game. Just that "such-and-such adjustments would result in their being horrible" is not a reason to rule them out.

Now you know why I didn't give the why, you don't want to hear a why even if it is a legitimate one. You want to see your own opinions and use absolutely ridiculous analogies to try and achieve your argument. You want to have them in game? that is fine, it's your prerogative but accept that people do not share your attitude. 

 

He gave you the reason you asked for, show a shred of courtesy and agree to disagree. 

 

Everyone is interested in giving suggestions that they feel will both help and not help to make the game the best it can be, if two opinions conflict there is no reason to become rude and hostile towards the opposing opinion. The goal is the same in the end.

Edited by Apok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you know why I didn't give the why, you don't want to hear a why even if it is a legitimate one.

 

You don't want to hear why something is not a legitimate "why," even if the reasoningnis legitimate? Reason did not spring forth from my opinion. It existed before I was born, and now I try my best to observe it and help others to do the same.

You want to see your own opinions and use absolutely ridiculous analogies to try and achieve your argument.

Would you be so kind as to explain how my analogy is ridiculous, exactly?

 

You want to have them in game? that is fine, it's your prerogative but accept that people do not share your attitude.

 

I don't want them in the game. I want them to be properly considered for the game before being ruled out. Not at all the same thing. Also, I don't see anywhere I haven't accepted a differing opinion. Encouraging someone to further consider their opinion is my prerogative, and in no way says "you can't have whatever opinion you want." I could very easily turn your own words around, here. You don't want them in the game? Fine. Accept that others don't share that attitude. Boom. Nothing is accomplished, as the existence of differing opinions is not in question. The only thing worth discussing is the stuff from which we derive our opinions. Hence my not saying "OMG! YOUR OPINION IS DUMB AND YOU NEED TO LEAVE MY OPINION ALONE!", and instead saying "I urge you to consider the fact that gliders could be implemented in such a way that you do not find them annoying just like in your very specific experiences with previous games. Then see if your opinion is truly still 'gliders are bad.'"

 

He gave you the reason you asked for, show a shred of courtesy and agree to disagree.

What's so vile about simply disagreeing?

 

Everyone is interested in giving suggestions that they feel will both help and not help to make the game the best it can be, if two opinions conflict there is no reason to become rude and hostile towards the opposing opinion. The goal is the same in the end.

Might you explin how and where exactly I've been rude or hostile? I'm truly sorry if you or anyone else here has read any of these words as if they were shouted in an angry fashion, but I assure youb if you read them as if C3PO is speaking them, you'll find that they're simply making a case for why a specific type of siege isn't necessarily bad for Crowfall.

 

With all due respect, this is a siege brainstorming thread, and I'll not censor my evaluations of various ideas purely because someone thinks their opinion means that we should simply stop talking about something. Don't want gliders? Doesn't make it illegal for me to continue brainstorming about them or supporting their potential.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rest my case, if you can't see your own condescending replies then your not going to get it. Just agree to disagree and move on.

 

 

GL with your Glider ventures.

Edited by Apok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rest my case, if you can't see your own condescending replies then your not going to get it. Just agree to disagree and move on.

 

GL with your Glider ventures.

If you can't do anything but apply a condescending tone to neutral text purely because it represents a differing point of view, then maybe it's for the best that you rest your case.

 

 

 

Shifting back to the topic at hand... I wonder if we'll see anything like a drill to take down walls/gates. If so, would there possibly be a crossover between harvesting/gathering and siege equipment?

 

I'm not sure exactly what level of technology is supposed to exist in the Crowfall universe. It would also be great to see some magical siege-related tools. You know, the "this is magically powered but still operates within the rules of physics" type stuff, so it's not just some infini-weapon or something, "because magic." maybe some kind of platforms for archers to stand on, then activate, causing the platform to hover 20 feet in the air. Damaging the platform may cause it to lower or come crashing down to damage/knockdown those in the area.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am probably in the minority here, but I hate the idea that siege engines are vehicles.

 

I rather see then as resource sinks

 

1. You spend a bunch of resources to build them

2.  You set them up and point them at a target

3.  So long as they are up and you provide them with ammo and keep the crew alive, once ever 5 minutes or so they do damage to whatever they are pointed at.

 

If you want to, you can(slowly move them)

 

I can, maybe, see some justification for having a ballista on a wheelbarrow or some such

 

Might make sense to have both trebuchets which are very slow to move and assemble but do massive damage as well as mangonels / onagers which are more mobile but do less damage.

 

Providing ammo for these beasts (should) be an interesting logistics problem.

Edited by narsille

WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A slow moving siege tower would be cool.  Could allow players to run up a few flights of stairs to get on top of the wall, while the defenders have to destroy it or successfully defend the exit funnel onto the ramparts.

 

9a1006e4ec0b98c4ab6dd6600a9909c2.jpg

 

I do like the idea of having the siege engines be important resource decisions.  Not disposable feeling, and not to where every solo player just drops one and charges into battle.  It should hurt when you lose them.  I think this would be conducive to players actually having to allocate defenders to escort the engines, instead of just tunnel vision attacking--like in Battlefield type games where the vehicles are essentially worthless.

 

All the siege engines, or siege type abilities (e.g. saboteur stuff) should feel like a different chess piece; or a different WH40k unit.  If you lose a Rook or a Rhino just willy-nilly, that sucks.

 

I also like the idea of slower moving vehicles, and logistics involved in keeping them supplied with ammo.  If you're going to let players carry the ammo, have it be 1 per person.  Otherwise, make a caravan/pack mule necessary to transport stacks.

Edited by mourne

"Food for the crows..."    Nobuo Xa'el

cdinUTh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm.  If you are going to have strategic siege engines then you need some sally ports on castles.  Always good for disrupting the enemy when they are building things to siege you.  Kind of want a sally port spell that lets me put up a temporary sally port in a wall for the castle holder.


Obsidian-ForumSignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see fully automated siege weapons.

 

There is little worse than being forced to combat as a vehicle instead of your character.

 

Vehicle combat was tried in World of Warcraft and failed horribly in that the player base didnt like it. Ulduar, Shrine of the Ancients, The Occulus, all used vehicle combat and every time I was forced into a vehicle Id think, I really wish I could be playing my character, this isnt fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see fully automated siege weapons.

 

There is little worse than being forced to combat as a vehicle instead of your character.

 

Vehicle combat was tried in World of Warcraft and failed horribly in that the player base didnt like it. Ulduar, Shrine of the Ancients, The Occulus, all used vehicle combat and every time I was forced into a vehicle Id think, I really wish I could be playing my character, this isnt fun.

Then don't use siege equipment. Still need foot soldiers to protect the engines and the camps. There are plenty who do enjoy driving them. But no just because you don't like it at no point should sieging or anything for that matter be automated.

Edited by pang

Share this post


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...