greetz me sooner rather than later.
<> OCEANIC CAMPAIGN I: OFFICIAL THREAD <>
- 主题发起人 The Adjudicator
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Gaiseec 说:
Yeah that's the thing. The reason why I originally left Rawr's first hex as village is because we didn't want insta-castles springing up everywhere. It seemed to advantageous to the barbarians to get a castle without waiting until they have 4 hexes or so.
In the case of Dojo vs. Rawr they both want a castle so there's no problem there. However, the kingdom doesn't feel like the barbarians deserve a castle I'd be tempted to leave the hex as is (but make it count as a stronhold for other reasons)
Last night on the test server we played Fight and Destroy. It was pretty good, but we only played 2 maps of it. Anyways,
It really fits in with the "fortified town" situation. I think we should investigate this more.
It really fits in with the "fortified town" situation. I think we should investigate this more.
ProPaul
Banned
Rawr_Calis 说:
To be honest, those conditions sound incredibly imbalanced. If the entire defending team is killed at once, then yes, they will probably lose, but that makes sense doesn't it? Defenders have the advantage on the field with the walls etc, and as it stands, 5 minutes is not really enough time to break into a castle with an organised team defending it. I predict Dojo lose 5-0 in this upcoming match purely due to time constraints.
With a 5-10 second respawn rate for defenders, not only do attackers have to battle their way into the castle, they need to fight a constant stream of guys once they are in. The odds are really stacked against them, they have no advantage.
Dojo's players are better then RAWR's players, in all honesty. But you should not adjust the rules to compensate for this. I know you weren't aiming to compensate for skill levels with your suggestions, but that would be the effect if those changes were brought in.
Personally, I think something along the lines of the following would be more suitable:
First to 3
6-8 minute rounds
Defenders have 3-5 lives per round
When was the last time you actually played siege?
Castle four is one of the better designed ones, but even still it's not a game mode designed for small battles.
A single person can cap the castle in around fifteen seconds if unopposed. It takes twenty seconds for the defenders to respawn, a good ten to fifteen to run to the flag from spawn depending on the map.
The defenders have five minutes of attacking a castle which has around five different entry points. They can attack maybe, ten, fifteen times in a five minute game.
So to win the defenders have to win 15-0 fights. For the attackers to win they only need 1-14.
There's a reason the default round length for siege is 3:30 and even then that's a bit high.
Castle four is one of the better designed ones, but even still it's not a game mode designed for small battles.
A single person can cap the castle in around fifteen seconds if unopposed. It takes twenty seconds for the defenders to respawn, a good ten to fifteen to run to the flag from spawn depending on the map.
The defenders have five minutes of attacking a castle which has around five different entry points. They can attack maybe, ten, fifteen times in a five minute game.
So to win the defenders have to win 15-0 fights. For the attackers to win they only need 1-14.
There's a reason the default round length for siege is 3:30 and even then that's a bit high.
Dojo choose Swadia for defending Random Plains in our second battle for hex A4.
It will be hard to come up with the most ideal settings, but I think we should probably stick to something similar to normal.
4-5 minutes as Calis said AND slightly reduced spawner for defenders (15-20secs).
That way, it's not too long, 20 secs. Plus it allows the attackers, IF they manage to win a decisive 4v4 battle or something to have a strong adv.
It will be hard to come up with the most ideal settings, but I think we should probably stick to something similar to normal.
4-5 minutes as Calis said AND slightly reduced spawner for defenders (15-20secs).
That way, it's not too long, 20 secs. Plus it allows the attackers, IF they manage to win a decisive 4v4 battle or something to have a strong adv.
Rawr_Calis
Recruit
Id like to point out that the 5-10 secs was just a suggestion which id like to have tested out beforehand and gotten feedback on.
I was not trying to compensate for the skill disparity between Dojo and Rawr players which in ay case doesnt exist (we all know im the best player in the oceanic community if not the entire world), maybe 5-10 secs is a bit excessive maybe 15 secs then? but in a game where there are less than 10 players per side the defenders can be killed off very quickly. Its not a matter of skill, because even if each defender can kill 2 attackers before they die its still imbalanced. The defender has to wait 20 secs tp respawn then run to the fight, the attackers respawn instantly and can get back into the caslte and on the flag in under 10 seconds. The settings are fine when there are more people playing because with more defenders slowing the attackers down, those who die can respawn and rejoin the fight. In the case of only a few players the attackers only have to win 1 fight, rush to the flag and cap for the win (as we've never played a clan seige im not sure how this plays out but thats my experience so far)
On the whole time issue well, with 6 ppl pushing it the siege tower can reach the wall in say under a minute, 30 seconds even, that leaves plenty of time for the attackers to fight their way in and cap the flag. Considering the flag can be caped in under 20 seconds the standard time limit is fair enough i say. In a bigger battle the defenders could have enough ranged + skirmishers to kill the people pushing the tower and slow down the attackers before they reach the wall but with only 10 there isnt enough manpower to stop you from getting to the walls.
Im not really sure who you are Propaul, but for me its not about winning or losing though winning would be nice, i would just prefer it to be a fun match and not a total wash out. As i had already stated before we are happy to play under the standard settings but it dont think an time extension or a limit on defender lives? would be fair.
And before this turns into a Dojo/Kos type thing lets all bear in mind this is just contructive brain storming, after this sunday we should have a better idea of how a seige match plays out and come up with fair settings for future matches. If rawr does smash Dojo 5-0 ill be more than willing to admit that defending is too easy and the time limit extended.
I was not trying to compensate for the skill disparity between Dojo and Rawr players which in ay case doesnt exist (we all know im the best player in the oceanic community if not the entire world), maybe 5-10 secs is a bit excessive maybe 15 secs then? but in a game where there are less than 10 players per side the defenders can be killed off very quickly. Its not a matter of skill, because even if each defender can kill 2 attackers before they die its still imbalanced. The defender has to wait 20 secs tp respawn then run to the fight, the attackers respawn instantly and can get back into the caslte and on the flag in under 10 seconds. The settings are fine when there are more people playing because with more defenders slowing the attackers down, those who die can respawn and rejoin the fight. In the case of only a few players the attackers only have to win 1 fight, rush to the flag and cap for the win (as we've never played a clan seige im not sure how this plays out but thats my experience so far)
On the whole time issue well, with 6 ppl pushing it the siege tower can reach the wall in say under a minute, 30 seconds even, that leaves plenty of time for the attackers to fight their way in and cap the flag. Considering the flag can be caped in under 20 seconds the standard time limit is fair enough i say. In a bigger battle the defenders could have enough ranged + skirmishers to kill the people pushing the tower and slow down the attackers before they reach the wall but with only 10 there isnt enough manpower to stop you from getting to the walls.
Im not really sure who you are Propaul, but for me its not about winning or losing though winning would be nice, i would just prefer it to be a fun match and not a total wash out. As i had already stated before we are happy to play under the standard settings but it dont think an time extension or a limit on defender lives? would be fair.
And before this turns into a Dojo/Kos type thing lets all bear in mind this is just contructive brain storming, after this sunday we should have a better idea of how a seige match plays out and come up with fair settings for future matches. If rawr does smash Dojo 5-0 ill be more than willing to admit that defending is too easy and the time limit extended.
superhit1000
Knight
Your Mother Was a Hamster and Your Father Smelt of Elderberries!
bobstar_24
Squire
I think your view is completely slanted, seriously, are you high? Please prove to me that anyone can make it from the attackers spawn to the flag in that time. Show me a video and I will take back everything i've said.Rawr_Calis 说:
I'm not saying that the rules are fair as they were, but you certainly are pushing it a bit Calis.
Keep it up and you may be muted. \o/
Rawr_Calis 说:
Yeah, it's kind of an experimental thing, so lets make some settings and stick with it.
I am happy with 15 second respawn. I don't know about the time limit for each round, but if the standard is 4 minutes or so, we should keep it at that.
Given the siege tower takes about 1 minute to move with a few people pushing, I would say 4-5, probably 5 minutes is ideal.
RAWR have many good players and they are good at defending, so I by no means think there is a great disparity in player skill.
It should be a good match I believe and I think the scores will be more like 5-3, Dojo's way.
We'll see though.So I propose:
5 minute round timer
15 second respawn for defenders
3 second respawn for attackers (minimum)
Castle 4
RAWR as Vaegirs
Dojo as Sarranids
10v10?
Sunday 7pm EST. If we could do at 7 that would be better for us and both matches would end by about 8-8:30 I think.
5 minute round timer
15 second respawn for defenders
3 second respawn for attackers (minimum)
Castle 4
RAWR as Vaegirs
Dojo as Sarranids
10v10?
Sunday 7pm EST. If we could do at 7 that would be better for us and both matches would end by about 8-8:30 I think.
Rawr_Calis
Recruit
Sounds good to me doom.
We could always jump on the seige server for fun saturday nite? and use the proposed settings, if we find its imbalance in any way we can just tweak it.
Obv we would play a different map and have mixed teams etc so opposing sides dont get preview of sundays game.
With the whole "getting back to the flag in 10 seconds thing" as moss pointed out the attackers spawn does shift significantly closer to the objective once the attackers are firmly in the castle. I didnt mean that the attackers will always get there in 10 secs but its possible with no obstacles in the way (e.g doors open, defenders dead).
oh btw, i dont see any problem with the attackers having an instant spawn it was just the rather long defender respawn that bothered me.
Oh a suggestion to Lazlo! With the fight and destroy game mode, i have an idea of how you could work it into the game. Lets say Dojo declares an attack on Rawrs castle, Rawr can declare a "Sally forth" attack which must be made within 24-48 hours of Dojos original declaration. What this means is Rawrs army sally's from their castle and tries to destroy Dojos seige engines. If rawr is successful the castle attack is nullified and Dojo will have wait the usual time to declare another attack. If the "sally" is unsuccessful, because of the losses due to the attack, Dojo is given a slight numerical advantage in the seige match.
e.g if rawr has 10 defenders, Dojo can bring 12 or something like that. What this would add is a bit of a twist to the campaign, clans wil have to decide whether they want to risk a "sally attack" in the hope of avoiding their castle being seiged against the chance they lose and give the enemy an advantage.
We could always jump on the seige server for fun saturday nite? and use the proposed settings, if we find its imbalance in any way we can just tweak it.
Obv we would play a different map and have mixed teams etc so opposing sides dont get preview of sundays game.
With the whole "getting back to the flag in 10 seconds thing" as moss pointed out the attackers spawn does shift significantly closer to the objective once the attackers are firmly in the castle. I didnt mean that the attackers will always get there in 10 secs but its possible with no obstacles in the way (e.g doors open, defenders dead).
oh btw, i dont see any problem with the attackers having an instant spawn it was just the rather long defender respawn that bothered me.
Oh a suggestion to Lazlo! With the fight and destroy game mode, i have an idea of how you could work it into the game. Lets say Dojo declares an attack on Rawrs castle, Rawr can declare a "Sally forth" attack which must be made within 24-48 hours of Dojos original declaration. What this means is Rawrs army sally's from their castle and tries to destroy Dojos seige engines. If rawr is successful the castle attack is nullified and Dojo will have wait the usual time to declare another attack. If the "sally" is unsuccessful, because of the losses due to the attack, Dojo is given a slight numerical advantage in the seige match.
e.g if rawr has 10 defenders, Dojo can bring 12 or something like that. What this would add is a bit of a twist to the campaign, clans wil have to decide whether they want to risk a "sally attack" in the hope of avoiding their castle being seiged against the chance they lose and give the enemy an advantage.
Rawr_Calis 说:
I like!
Maybe something like if a team loses or wins the fight in the sally forth battle in the next fight they get minus troops, or get to pick a person to not allow to fight for the next clan match (Hostage or something). I dunno, but it sounds awesome.
The problem with siege is that attackers get an advantage on low numbers, defenders have an advantage on high numbers.
Take a 1v1 situation, all the attacker has to do is beat the defender twice in a row within 5 minutes to win.
Obviously nobody plays 1v1 siege, but the idea remains the same as numbers increase - the defenders waste more and more time with each fight and eventually get a constant stream of reinforcements.
Only advantage attackers get is a faster siege tower, faster breaking of doors and faster flag capping.
Although in saying that, when we played a big siege game yesterday, attackers were absolutely dominating on most maps, but I think that's more because we were organised.
Take a 1v1 situation, all the attacker has to do is beat the defender twice in a row within 5 minutes to win.
Obviously nobody plays 1v1 siege, but the idea remains the same as numbers increase - the defenders waste more and more time with each fight and eventually get a constant stream of reinforcements.
Only advantage attackers get is a faster siege tower, faster breaking of doors and faster flag capping.
Although in saying that, when we played a big siege game yesterday, attackers were absolutely dominating on most maps, but I think that's more because we were organised.
