There is an enormous amount of what is basically voluntary self sabotage happening on siege as people open the the main gates to rambo to their hearts content, even if alternative sortie ports and exits remain available. In Warband, this is kind of a big deal and I know in the events my folks run we will gladly outright ban someone for it, and (I think it may just be with the adimi module but) it will tell you who did it in the case of the winch gates.
My suggestion is to not allow the defenders to open the main gates. It could also include a short unlocking animation or progress bar for attackers that get around, so they cannot instantly open the gates either. The defenders can then close and re-lock the gates, but never open them. I still think there is a place for sorties in the siege mode, especially if the defender team is just that much more competent than the attackers, but that should be forced through alternative routes that are considerably harder for the attackers to exploit, such as narrow sortie doors and jumping down from the walls in increments, on terrain or roofs that the attackers can't jump up to. Here are some reason why I think this should be the case -
1) It creates a front where none should exist
It opens up the defenders to a flood of attackers they didn't ask for before the attacker had been required to actually break down the defenses. This draws players away from another entrypoint, say a breach with its own flag in need of defending, and requiring defenders to respond to this new breach at the expense of another. Because at least *1* person wanted to take the short way out.
2) It discourages teamwork - attackers should be making cooperative efforts to destroy the gates and attack other entrances, while the defenders should be making cooperative efforts to defend - for example, form a wall of shields in the gateway to stop the enemy where stones can be dropped on them, or properly defending the ram. Letting any defender open the gate just turns it into another TDM mosh pit. And frankly, the ram is pretty easy to destroy with dropping stones if you have a few people on the job.
So how about changing the dynamic to - Attacker artillery focuses on merlons above the gate, while attacking archers counter arch, infantry provides shield cover and operates other siege equipment, while defender artillery aims for attack artillery, and defender archers aim for pushers and attacking archers, and drop stones when the ram gets too close. That way, all the equipment gets put to very consequential use.
3) For the most part, its completely unnecessary.
There is almost always a way to sortie that doesn't involve screwing over your own team. People who are too lazy, selfish and stupid still choose to open the gates anyway, and it always only takes one to screw over the entire defending team.
4) Theres nothing you can do about it
No admins, no TK, instant prompt means no ability to even flinch them and interrupt even if you could team damage.
5) It generally causes disorder and a less interesting game dynamic
This is admittedly very subjective, like my feelings on cavalry in siege, but I feel as though, like in my previous point, its just TDM with capture points rather than an actual siege. It permits people to go out on their own and (attempt to) farm kills, no matter how perilously inefficient, and leave any notion of team fighting, or objectives, or cooperation behind.
6) People opening and closing doors to prevent them from being damaged
Its a janky as hell thing to do at any rate, its an incredibly bizzarre scenario where a ram reaches the wall but its of no use because.. you cant hit a gate thats already open. And by opening and closing the door strategically you can prevent it from being damaged, mess with the swings and cooperative efforts to destroy the doors, and take pot shots outside.
Overall, what does one expect to see in a siege? I don't usually wish to appeal to authenticity, but wouldnt it just be a lot more siegey if it wasn't so common for the ram to be dismantled by a sortie of infantry? That would be pretty weird to see regularly in a siege scenario, right? Usually defenders stay on their side of the wall for a reason - but individual players generally don't have that sense of self preservation, so they can tolerate the idea of suicidal rambo charges. Also numbers/reinforcements aren't a concern. Its all well and good to want to have your Charge-Out-The-Keep-Of-Helms-Deep moment but that just wouldn't work without plot armour.
Anyhow, let me know what you think
My suggestion is to not allow the defenders to open the main gates. It could also include a short unlocking animation or progress bar for attackers that get around, so they cannot instantly open the gates either. The defenders can then close and re-lock the gates, but never open them. I still think there is a place for sorties in the siege mode, especially if the defender team is just that much more competent than the attackers, but that should be forced through alternative routes that are considerably harder for the attackers to exploit, such as narrow sortie doors and jumping down from the walls in increments, on terrain or roofs that the attackers can't jump up to. Here are some reason why I think this should be the case -
1) It creates a front where none should exist
It opens up the defenders to a flood of attackers they didn't ask for before the attacker had been required to actually break down the defenses. This draws players away from another entrypoint, say a breach with its own flag in need of defending, and requiring defenders to respond to this new breach at the expense of another. Because at least *1* person wanted to take the short way out.
2) It discourages teamwork - attackers should be making cooperative efforts to destroy the gates and attack other entrances, while the defenders should be making cooperative efforts to defend - for example, form a wall of shields in the gateway to stop the enemy where stones can be dropped on them, or properly defending the ram. Letting any defender open the gate just turns it into another TDM mosh pit. And frankly, the ram is pretty easy to destroy with dropping stones if you have a few people on the job.
So how about changing the dynamic to - Attacker artillery focuses on merlons above the gate, while attacking archers counter arch, infantry provides shield cover and operates other siege equipment, while defender artillery aims for attack artillery, and defender archers aim for pushers and attacking archers, and drop stones when the ram gets too close. That way, all the equipment gets put to very consequential use.
3) For the most part, its completely unnecessary.
There is almost always a way to sortie that doesn't involve screwing over your own team. People who are too lazy, selfish and stupid still choose to open the gates anyway, and it always only takes one to screw over the entire defending team.
4) Theres nothing you can do about it
No admins, no TK, instant prompt means no ability to even flinch them and interrupt even if you could team damage.
5) It generally causes disorder and a less interesting game dynamic
This is admittedly very subjective, like my feelings on cavalry in siege, but I feel as though, like in my previous point, its just TDM with capture points rather than an actual siege. It permits people to go out on their own and (attempt to) farm kills, no matter how perilously inefficient, and leave any notion of team fighting, or objectives, or cooperation behind.
6) People opening and closing doors to prevent them from being damaged
Its a janky as hell thing to do at any rate, its an incredibly bizzarre scenario where a ram reaches the wall but its of no use because.. you cant hit a gate thats already open. And by opening and closing the door strategically you can prevent it from being damaged, mess with the swings and cooperative efforts to destroy the doors, and take pot shots outside.
Overall, what does one expect to see in a siege? I don't usually wish to appeal to authenticity, but wouldnt it just be a lot more siegey if it wasn't so common for the ram to be dismantled by a sortie of infantry? That would be pretty weird to see regularly in a siege scenario, right? Usually defenders stay on their side of the wall for a reason - but individual players generally don't have that sense of self preservation, so they can tolerate the idea of suicidal rambo charges. Also numbers/reinforcements aren't a concern. Its all well and good to want to have your Charge-Out-The-Keep-Of-Helms-Deep moment but that just wouldn't work without plot armour.
Anyhow, let me know what you think
