Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Phr00t

Defender's advantage is too powerful at present

Recommended Posts

It's been debated at length that defenders usually have an advantage in these kind of siege games, given positioning and tactical advantage of being able to stay static versus an approaching force. However Crowfall takes this to another level.

Let's look at the advantages that a defending force currently have at a Fort or Keep during a siege window:

1) Positional advantage - defenders are able to sit on walls or in fortified positions, and attackers must move to them. 
2) Ability to launch defensive siege from walls or fortified positions - Ballista are another topic altogether right now.
3) High rank guards hitting attackers for 20% of their life per hit, from 100m away. 
4) Respawn economy - Defenders are able to spawn nearby, without any penalty other than a timer.

I'm going to focus mostly on point 4) in this post. 

Testing has shown that the first death penalty incurs a ~90 second respawn timer. https://gfycat.com/zealousmagnificentamericancreamdraft - Proof of 90 second respawn on first death.

 

If your flight time is short, such as when defending a keep or fort, your first death is essentially meaningless and you can respawn quickly. 
Let's envision a scenario when you are the defending force at a Fort, and you venture outside of the walls to confront attackers. Let's say the fight is relatively even, and each faction loses 5 members during the battle. Given even numbers, this fight essentially means that the attacking force has already lost the battle. Defenders simply wait the 90 seconds, resurrect and are good to go, while attackers need to fly to the nearest spawn location, which may not even be in the same zone if you are sieging a Fort.

So now each side has lost 5 players, and the attacking force is essentially down 5 members. It takes longer than 90 seconds to regroup, destroy a wall and be ready to push in. Defenders are now all alive, and can resume with their original numbers.

Attackers must continue into another compromising situation: attacking the throne rooms, or killing guards. Some guards cannot even be reached at this stage, as they will be up on walls that in most cases, cannot be climbed, as most defending teams will not repair ramps, only ladders, which attacking teams cannot use. 
In the current game, generally you don't even bother with killing guards, because that gives the enemy team more time to resurrect and regroup.

So the attacking team charges the throne room and the enemy players (and at least 4 guards). Should they manage to kill anyone that didn't die in the first attack, those players can resurrect 90 seconds later and rejoin the fight, however attackers cannot reinforce with new players. Most battles last much longer than 90 seconds, so it's not rare to kill the same person 3-4 times in one siege.

See this video for part of an example. 
Just in this video alone:
Bzra dies 2:15
Taloc dies 3:30
Samwell dies 3:45
Samwell is back in the fight visible at 6:00
Bzra is back in the fight at 6:05
Taloc is back in the fight and dies at 6:23

 



Although the POV person from the video dies, I can assure you that when we pushed into the throne room, we fought Samwell, Taloc, and many others that we had already killed multiple times again. 
The fight ended when uXa reinforced with superior numbers, but we would have likely lost the battle eventually due to pure attrition, an issue that the defenders do not have to deal with.

 

 

In summary, defenders have too strong of an advantage in the current state of the game. 
Attackers must push through long range and sometimes impossible to reach guards, overpowered ballista with invisible spell effects, and advantageous defender positioning. 
Attackers also have to deal with respawning defenders who are able to rejoin fights at full strength, as Death Shroud doesn't apply when you resurrect at a Dragon statue. 
And on top of all of this, attackers have to succeed in eliminating the opposing force in one singular push, as they cannot reinforce in a timely manner. Defenders get multiple chances to win.

All this combined means that for attackers to win a Keep, they must either vastly outnumber, out-skill or out-gear the enemy, or defenders decide not to protect the keep at all. There is no situation in Crowfall right now where an attacking force can squeak out a win and claw out a victory after a hard-fought, even battle. 


Suggestions

  • Add a 3-5 minute death shroud timer from time of death. If a player resurrects via a dragon statue, they have the death shroud debuff until that time runs out. (Players resurrected by allies should not be given death shroud, ACE you have this one backwards in the current game)
  • Remove MKIV ballista from the game or see other suggestions regarding eliminating targeting inside your own keep walls.
  • Tune or tone down fort and keep guards. They are either too powerful, or have too much range, or both. We are not here to fight insane guards, we're here to fight other players. Having NPCs be so strong and possibly turning the tide of battles is not what we signed up for. 

Thank you for your interest

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phr00t said:

Add a 3-5 minute death shroud timer from time of death. If a player resurrects via a dragon statue, they have the death shroud debuff until that time runs out. (Players resurrected by allies should not be given death shroud, ACE you have this one backwards in the current game) 

 

This is the biggest issue IMO. Ever since death shroud was introduced the problem was that it could be cleared by reloging or dodged entirely on res. I really like the new death mechanic of flying to a safe place, but if that safe place is 10m away from where I died there should at least be something preventing me from rejoining the fight immediately.

I also agree that the shroud on resurrection is backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KatzeWeiss said:

 

This is the biggest issue IMO. Ever since death shroud was introduced the problem was that it could be cleared by reloging or dodged entirely on res. I really like the new death mechanic of flying to a safe place, but if that safe place is 10m away from where I died there should at least be something preventing me from rejoining the fight immediately.

I also agree that the shroud on resurrection is backwards.

Agreed with this, I don't even think ballista need to be toned down that much.  Half of the problems will be fixed if people can see the AoEs and the other half have had other threads with good suggestions on how to tone down ballista without removing their tactical presence in sieges.

 

Large, evenly matched fort fights however feel like an impossible slog for attackers due to how accessible resurrection is.  Even if you camp the dragon statue the invulnerability window on res makes this tough.  Altering or disabling ressurection at dragon statues inside of holdings being attacked would help alleviate this particular issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d rather see the guards and ballistas toned down before revisiting the respawn timers. I really don’t think the latter is as game changing as it seems. 

80m range on guards is ridiculous. The outright damage plus all the dots and cc is overwhelming. Plus they’re super tanky. 

Ballistas has its own thread and should be addressed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you are saying, it is 'annoying' in an equal numbers fight. But, a defending force should have an advantage, imho, not just historical accuracy blah blah blah, but within the game mechanics also. That faction fought hard, maybe repaired, maybe spent resources to capture, so why should an attacking force have an even chance? No the attacking force just needs to turn up with more bodies than the defenders to have even a chance. 

The respawn nearby issue, well there are ways to deal with that in both keeps and forts, but involves having extra numbers and possibly clearing some extra guards. Depending on your healing.

 

I am quite new to the game and I am sure you would beat me in a 1v1, but respectfully, I disagree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raindog said:

I know what you are saying, it is 'annoying' in an equal numbers fight. But, a defending force should have an advantage, imho, not just historical accuracy blah blah blah, but within the game mechanics also. That faction fought hard, maybe repaired, maybe spent resources to capture, so why should an attacking force have an even chance? No the attacking force just needs to turn up with more bodies than the defenders to have even a chance. 

The respawn nearby issue, well there are ways to deal with that in both keeps and forts, but involves having extra numbers and possibly clearing some extra guards. Depending on your healing.

 

I am quite new to the game and I am sure you would beat me in a 1v1, but respectfully, I disagree.  

 

Not once did I say that defenders SHOULDN'T have an advantage, merely that the advantage given to defenders in Crowfall is too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Phr00t said:

 

Not once did I say that defenders SHOULDN'T have an advantage, merely that the advantage given to defenders in Crowfall is too much.

" Let's say the fight is relatively even, and each faction loses 5 members during the battle. Given even numbers, this fight essentially means that the attacking force has already lost the battle. " 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Raindog said:

" Let's say the fight is relatively even, and each faction loses 5 members during the battle. Given even numbers, this fight essentially means that the attacking force has already lost the battle. " 

 

??? Keep reading. I say the defenders are at a FURTHER advantage after going 5 for 5 in a fight outside the walls because they can just resurrect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think being able to respawn in a fort while it's being attacked/capped, is a bit silly. I think there needs to be some sort of conflict/exclusion zone around such objects, where one cannot respawn at said place, until X time of Y conflict in Z parcel has passed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for defender advantage but it is a bit much. I don't want to completely kill this mechanic though. I'd rather in stead place a "reinforcements" debuff after the first in-place respawn so defenders get one and only one free respawn at the objective and are afterward locked out.

This would much more cleanly emulate dug in defenders at any scale of structure fight without creating a never ending cycle.

I'd also like to see attackers get the option of some deployable war tents which allow them to do the same. This would allow the attackers the same ability, but in a far less well defended position (in a field with no guards or walls) with a similar cost to the defenders and encourage the consideration of assault expenses so that poi structure resources are useful for something other than walls and have utility for attacking as well.

Only having one respawn at the objective should make everyone involved a bit more concerned for their own well being and encourage them to use the tools on offer more wisely.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

I'd also like to see attackers get the option of some deployable war tents which allow them to do the same

I'd agree with that, so long as they consumed a decent amount of resources - say like 1 to 5 ballistas worth... otherwise, bring a bigger force, or use better strategy (own the walls, clear the guards, camp the statue). Its already possible to 2 man an undefended fort so I'm not keen on diluting the fort defenses.

Do you really want forts to be as easy to take as outposts ?

 

@Phr00t - I did read it all, I respect what you say, lets agree to disagree ?

Rain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eso did a siege tent for attackers and i thought that worked pretty well but defenders need that bonus of allowing players to respawn at the statue. I think Ballista's are the real issue, make them only face outwards and see how that goes? its a test after all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...