Siege currently is not reaching it's 'fun potential' for a number of reasons.
1. Cav, but other threads have pointed to this so I won't spend any more of your precious reading time on that.
2. Damn multiple flag issue, which I will discuss.
3. Rocks and explosives that can destroy defenses by players throwing them.
1.
2. Having multiple flags is great idea. It makes the siege not only focus on the single flag at the back, but also center around capturing sections of wall, towers, courtyards and the like. It does cause some issues though, Going for G straight away is not only easy, it is the most effective way to either win quickly or get the focus off of the walls so the rest of your team can breach them.
Not only is G easy to capture, all the other objectives are just up for grabs for whoever can (usually quite easily) sneak past the main walls. When this happens, and it usually does, siege turns into a conquest game-mode on a castle map. The way the game-mode is currently set up, running past the walls and capping whilst ignoring enemies is the meta to win. It doesn't focus any fighting over any corridors or chokepoints, it's just running around all the cap points until G is the last point left. Only then is there actually a concentrated fight that goes on. I would suggest that all this spread out skirmishing over the siege map is not what the devs had in mind when developing siege, but it is what it has turned into.
What, in my opinion, could fix this is a staged siege. Where only two or three points are cappable at each stage. My fondest memories of sieges were in Warband on the staged Minas Tirith map. Where you first had to cap the walls, then the courtyards and all the other levels of the city. It forced heavy fighting in confined spaces with whole teams present there, which makes everything more intense and for me more enjoyable.
In practice, I see two different ways of doing this. Either consecutive set of stages can be set up: A & B, C &D, E &F (maybe along with G), G. Or the same sort of thing with 3 objectives. Or you start with A&B, and when either one is captured, C or D pops up as cappable, and so on.
Alternatively, if these stages are not what the devs want, I suggest locking G until only two other objectives remain. This would still solve the easy win by capping G ASAP, but not the conquest mode it turns into once people bypass the walls.
3. The rocks and explosives that are spread out on spots in the castle are, in essence, a good addition to sieges. They are of course ammunition for the catapults, but also serve as great weapons to kill players outright. I see the downsides of them in threefold.
First, attackers can destroy defenders' ramparts completely negating the defenses around Skala's Landing's G point for example.
Secondly, defenders can destroy their own castle. This encourages trolls to mess around and accidentally makes defenders destroy battlements (like the wooden bits above the gate on Skala's Landing), because of how weird the throwing angle and aiming is on them. In addition to these, it also encourages defenders to destory certain advantageous sections of battlements in their favour. Such as the battlements at F facing towards G on Skala's Landing.
Thirdly, defenders can too easily sally out and destroy the assaulting catapults by throwing the ammo meant to be used by said catapults. Sallying out and destroying these so a breach cannot be made is currently the best way to win as the defending team.
As I see it, all of the issues mentioned above can be solved by making the boulders and explosive pots not deal damage to buildings and catapults when thrown by players. Instead, they can only deal damage to players when thrown by hand.
Another option is to assign stacks of the boulders and pots to a particular team. This would result in the attackers not being able to use the rocks and pots inside of the castle, and the defenders wouldn't be able to use those reserved for the attacking catapults outside of the castle.
I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. What makes you disagree with me and what could the resulting side effects be?
Cheers,
Horris
*edit*: title
1. Cav, but other threads have pointed to this so I won't spend any more of your precious reading time on that.
2. Damn multiple flag issue, which I will discuss.
3. Rocks and explosives that can destroy defenses by players throwing them.
2. Having multiple flags is great idea. It makes the siege not only focus on the single flag at the back, but also center around capturing sections of wall, towers, courtyards and the like. It does cause some issues though, Going for G straight away is not only easy, it is the most effective way to either win quickly or get the focus off of the walls so the rest of your team can breach them.
Not only is G easy to capture, all the other objectives are just up for grabs for whoever can (usually quite easily) sneak past the main walls. When this happens, and it usually does, siege turns into a conquest game-mode on a castle map. The way the game-mode is currently set up, running past the walls and capping whilst ignoring enemies is the meta to win. It doesn't focus any fighting over any corridors or chokepoints, it's just running around all the cap points until G is the last point left. Only then is there actually a concentrated fight that goes on. I would suggest that all this spread out skirmishing over the siege map is not what the devs had in mind when developing siege, but it is what it has turned into.
What, in my opinion, could fix this is a staged siege. Where only two or three points are cappable at each stage. My fondest memories of sieges were in Warband on the staged Minas Tirith map. Where you first had to cap the walls, then the courtyards and all the other levels of the city. It forced heavy fighting in confined spaces with whole teams present there, which makes everything more intense and for me more enjoyable.
In practice, I see two different ways of doing this. Either consecutive set of stages can be set up: A & B, C &D, E &F (maybe along with G), G. Or the same sort of thing with 3 objectives. Or you start with A&B, and when either one is captured, C or D pops up as cappable, and so on.
Alternatively, if these stages are not what the devs want, I suggest locking G until only two other objectives remain. This would still solve the easy win by capping G ASAP, but not the conquest mode it turns into once people bypass the walls.
3. The rocks and explosives that are spread out on spots in the castle are, in essence, a good addition to sieges. They are of course ammunition for the catapults, but also serve as great weapons to kill players outright. I see the downsides of them in threefold.
First, attackers can destroy defenders' ramparts completely negating the defenses around Skala's Landing's G point for example.
Secondly, defenders can destroy their own castle. This encourages trolls to mess around and accidentally makes defenders destroy battlements (like the wooden bits above the gate on Skala's Landing), because of how weird the throwing angle and aiming is on them. In addition to these, it also encourages defenders to destory certain advantageous sections of battlements in their favour. Such as the battlements at F facing towards G on Skala's Landing.
Thirdly, defenders can too easily sally out and destroy the assaulting catapults by throwing the ammo meant to be used by said catapults. Sallying out and destroying these so a breach cannot be made is currently the best way to win as the defending team.
As I see it, all of the issues mentioned above can be solved by making the boulders and explosive pots not deal damage to buildings and catapults when thrown by players. Instead, they can only deal damage to players when thrown by hand.
Another option is to assign stacks of the boulders and pots to a particular team. This would result in the attackers not being able to use the rocks and pots inside of the castle, and the defenders wouldn't be able to use those reserved for the attacking catapults outside of the castle.
I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. What makes you disagree with me and what could the resulting side effects be?
Cheers,
Horris
*edit*: title
