ROCK General Information and Discussion : Current

[Gaius_Octavian]

Theoretically this judgement implies that a clan, in particular GK, has a very good opportunity to abuse the ruleset.  They are a classy bunch and would likely not do this, but I believe that it demonstrates a very clear game break.

If GK could convince, say 25%, of the people on their siege server to show up for an event and sit in spec in a match against LES (or other smaller clan) They could pull an additional 16 for their fight in addition to the 30 or so current members of GK.  Using LES as an example, we field 10 players.  Agaisnt 46 with the current ruleset GK could field 28 people against our 10.

Using the rule

Battle Size Calculation
• Engagements with an equal amount of participating players may be fought at even numbers if desired.
• The base amount of players that will be fielded will equal the smaller number of players brought to the battle by either side.
• If a team has a higher amount of players available for an engagment, a reinforcement player may participate equalling one player  for every two additional players that are brought by that team.
• Final Battle Size will equal:
I. Team with lower number of players = Base
II. Team with higher number of players = Base + Reinforcement(Total - Base / 2)

Now all the mercs have to do is set in the spec and free it up for more GK to join the fight.  So it would be 28 skilled players vs. 10 skilled players.  Even if the battle was 10000 LES deaths to 1000 GK deaths.  3 on 1 is still unfavorable in any fight. 

Granted it would be difficult for them to do so, but just pointing out possible abuses now that mercs are viable. 

 

[Mad_Dawg]

The rules have never changed, mercs have always been viable.  The reasonings are listed with the criteria.

The rule is there for specific reasons and shouldn't be abused.  Abuse of the rule will cause consequent action and I think everyone that was looking to utilize the rule has a much clearer view of the intent and is erring on the conservative side.

Frankly noone could tell the difference is everyone on POM put on an LES tag and came to a scrim.  Without team rosters there is no true way to know if someone is with the clan or not.  It falls to the honor system, as 90% of Warband does. (Abitrary percentage pulled out of thin air.  But of course, 84.6% of all statistics are made up anyway.)

 

[Grad]

Working under said honor system, GK has not and will not field any mercs for ROCK - we signed up as a clan as did every other lordship. Bringing in other players violates that agreement.

 

[Mad_Dawg]

Updates, updates, updates

New Module will need to be downloaded and installed before your next engagement by all players for proper function for them.
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=212936.new#new



- New map is up. 
- Historiograph is updated. 
- Turn thread is ready for Turn 5. 
- Scheduling thread is updated with known engagements.

 

[Wappaw_Pizza42]

Spoiler

Continuing the discussion started by Coopels and Pizza here since this seems to be the more appropriate thread:

Or you could have just played it out instead of leaving.

I'm not trying to start anything, but nothing that Wappaw did was against the rules-- so no "fault" lies with Wappaw. I'm not happy with our turnout either, but I'm sure there were better actions for you guys to take than just deciding not to play after we scheduled the event.

The inclusion of mercs breaks the system and negates the point of the registration process. After seeing a few guys with merc tags hop onto the server, I held a brief discussion with Mad Dawg. He clearly stated that Wappaw's actions were within the confines of the ruleset, so I do not find Wappaw deserving of any sort of campaign penalty. However, after sharing my views with a few individuals in private and then with all who were present for the match, the boycotting of that engagement was the general consensus.

I am not willing to participate in any ROCK battle in any capacity where mercs are included. Despite taking that position, the results of Sunday's event currently has no bearing on GK's future participation in ROCK - I will continue acting as the main contact and proceed as usual. In the event that mercs are included in a future engagement involving GK, those in the clan who still wish to participate will stay on their own accord and perform as best as they can.

Wappaw's numbers at the time of registration were based on POMs participation with us This was cleared back in early December through PMs. I don't see how that "negates the point of the registration process".

If you look at Balion's player list at the siege of Tihr, you see Unix and Akmar playing without Balion tags.

Are they not mercs? I don't see Unix or Akmar listed in Balion's roster. I'm sure you'd agree that they were mercing.

Did you also speak with Mad Dawg about them playing? Did you consider leaving?

I'd like to include that if you look at GKs registration, they listed 10 active players. 10. Yet when they were slated to play Wappaw at Chalbek, around 18 GKs showed up. Close to twice the number that was entered upon registration. I'm sure you see that this also "negates the point of the registration process".

Overall, I'm fine with the system the way it is.

In closing I'd like to add that I hope this doesn't hurt GK-Wappaw relations. We like playing with you guys and look forward to playing against you in the rest of ROCK.

 

[Coopels]

It's not mercing in general that bothers me so much because that does allow people to play who aren't in bigger clans (which I think is the spirit behind Mad Dawg's ruling). It's when more than half of a clan team is made up of those mercs that I think it qualifies as abuse.

And yes we did have a concern about Unix and Akmar at first, but we were told they were ok'd just as POM was for Wappaw instead of random players they had found at the last minute to boost their numbers.

Those listings of active players are estimations of field-able players not guidelines. Strangely enough though, nobody from GK posted a listing in the registration thread that I can find so I don't know why we're listed at 10 when we have 30+ active members.

Edit* Sorry for originally posting in the wrong thread. I assumed incorrectly that it would be ok since that turn had been completed already.

 

[Gaius_Octavian]

Goodbye ROCK Campaign.  This is just not quite right.  I will make no accusations, but this whole business today was rather shady.  Thank you fro waiting for LES, but then trying to blame because you choose to wait. 

Doesn't seem quite right.  Then forcing a reschedule because the defenders weren't there.  when the attackers failed to show at GK vs. Wappaw it was autoresolved as this should be. 

As I am exiting this is not for debate, I am not longer involved in what looked like a pretty good time.  Good fights everyone. 

 

[KissMyAxe]

Those listings of active players are estimations of field-able players not guidelines. Strangely enough though, nobody from GK posted a listing in the registration thread that I can find so I don't know why we're listed at 10 when we have 30+ active members.

The numbers given during the registration were lower bounds on the number of players a Lordship can reliably field for an engagement. Also, GK has registered via a PM to me so, naturally, there's no post in the registration thread. On a related note, POM's participation in the Lordship of Wappaw was discussed during the registration and their player estimates were based on that.

 

[Grad]

Doesn't seem quite right.  Then forcing a reschedule because the defenders weren't there.  when the attackers failed to show at GK vs. Wappaw it was autoresolved as this should be.

Just commenting on this point only and not on all of the happenings of the two siege events earlier tonight:

GK didn't fail to show up at the GK vs. Wappaw siege last weekend. That night, there were a few disagreements between myself and Mad Dawg about what should and should not be allowed in ROCK, which resulted in GK choosing to forfeit. Do not mistake that for us not appearing; we had around 20 guys present and on the server. To clear things up a bit more, that engagement was not autoresolved. I incorrectly requested an autoresolve in my discussion with Mad (I was referring to a previous incarnation of the autoresolve function that was discussed during the development stages of ROCK), but he interpreted my request correctly in the form of a forfeit. Needless to say, I am quite surprised GK only took a 10% casualty penalty - as laid out in the rules for scheduling faults - since we boycotted the engagement instead of failing to schedule. Honestly, I was expecting to take a 40% penalty at least.

Back to the point at hand - this situation should not be related to the GK vs. Wappaw siege in any form as these two dilemmas spring from completely different conditions. That being said, the outcome of this scenario does not necessarily have to be different or similar to that of the GK vs. Wappaw siege. It should be handled independently, and the ruling then should not act as a precedent for this case.

 

[Orion]

The best precedent for tonight's second siege event is the Ra + LES vs. Balion siege of Sargoth. In that siege, one whole lordship failed to make an appearance for the entire duration of the battle (Ra). The engagement was resolved normally in their absence. Tonight, the same situation occurred inversely. KoA did not feel they could stick around for the siege, but TLB had several players on and all participating Rebel lordships had representation. It is my understanding that the garrison forces are taking a 10% penalty for the no-show, but that is significantly less than the losses they would have incurred had TLB fought alone despite KoA's absence. Likewise, the losses LES received at Sargoth fighting alone could have been considerably lessened had Ra shown up to support as they were supposed to.

Before anyone even mentions the late start for tonight's siege, I'd like to clarify two things. First, the siege was held until LES finished a scheduled match for another tournament. ROCK administrators were fully aware of this scheduling conflict, yet the time for tonight's siege was not changed. Secondly, there was no set time for the second siege to begin. All participants knew that it would begin after the conclusion of the first, so it is not unreasonable to expect the participating teams to be prepared for a long session, especially given the fact that they had plenty of notification beforehand. There was no established "deadline" for the first siege, no threshold, no upper limit. Everyone on the Rebel side was prepared to fight both engagements, and TLB stuck around until it became apparent that the siege wasn't going to be fought, at which point they dissipated.

An entire group of lordships showed up, and half of the opposition's lordships showed as well. When this happened in the LES + Ra vs. Balion siege, it was played regardless of LES' disadvantage. Here, the entire siege was moved to Monday to avoid disadvantaging KoA. I've already made clear my position on last-minute Monday-night deadlines, it's absolute bull**** to expect teams to gather all of their players on 24 hours notice on the weekday of weekdays. It's also inconsistent to punish one team (LES) for their ally's mistake but not another team (TLB) for their ally's mistake.

Precedent dictates that the siege should have been fought tonight as it stood, with the assembled Rebel forces against TLB and any of the KoAs that could stay. Precedent dictates such, because it was founded when Balions defended the city of Sargoth against a combined force of Ra and LES and the engagement was resolved in the absence of Ra, regardless of the disadvantage conferred to LES by the circumstances.

Now I'll ask the important question.

What kind of bull**** show are you running where you'll give preferential treatment to the same side repeatedly, regardless of precedent or circumstance?

Even the GK @ Chalbek resolution displays favoritism. Harald already said he expected a higher penalty for refusing to play at a scheduled time - even though he had plenty of players to do so - but was only given the standard penalty of 10% for failing to show. It is one thing not to show up at all, but quite another to show up and essentially tell the entire enemy team to **** off because you don't like the rules. I seriously doubt GK harbors any ill-will or resentment for the opposing parties (ergo, I'm sure they didn't say "**** off," they're much too classy), but refusing to play under the accepted rules is beyond a simple scheduling conflict. Why was the penalty not greater for what is obviously rejection of the agreed-upon rule set? It's not failing to show up, it's neglect of the rules. I could argue as to why it's even a violation of the rules, but I won't push this point any further. I still like GK, I'm just arguing the principle of the matter, but I'd like to avoid offense.

Speaking of those funny rules, why are there grey areas regarding certain campaign mechanics? I'm especially curious about upgrades. I asked for Mad Dawg's reasoning on one of these particular issues, but he dodged my question and insisted on pushing tonight's first siege into gear regardless of the issues surrounding it. Why are besieged settlements capable of being upgraded? It makes absolutely no sense for a besieged castle to successfully undertake construction efforts outside of their walls, directly in front of their enemies. I would ask why none of the campaign administrators thought to question this obvious flaw in the rules, but I realize they have a vested interest in the matter because the castle in question is theirs. Therefore, I would like an answer to my question from those who run a significantly lower chance of being biased in this matter. What reasoning supports the conclusion that settlement upgrades are acceptable while the settlement in question is being actively besieged or raided?

Moving on, I found another post of interest to me regarding the troops inside Tehlrog castle this turn. That castle is currently besieged, and the siege would have been fought tonight. Please forgive me for the coming sarcasm, but I feel I should point it out because it might not be too obvious to some of you. Here it comes. It's a good thing that siege was rescheduled for Monday, because it's got some issues of its own! This concludes the sarcasm for now. Onto the issue at hand: why are troops that are locked inside of a castle under siege allowed to receive gear upgrades? Where does this gear come from? How does it get into the castle? Are the besieging armies considered absolutely retarded in this campaign, or did they lose track of the merry twits walking whimsically into the castle carrying armor and weapons as they talked amongst themselves about Curin's shiny new pallisade? I find it highly unlikely that any sort of upgrades could be carried out regarding a besieged settlement or the troops inside of it.

Finally, I'd like to further contest the gear upgrade for troops at Tehlrog Castle. The army in question belongs to TLB. TLB purchased a gear upgrade this turn, which is the same turn that an engagement involving them is to be resolved. The rule for upgrading troops is as follows:

Lordships will have the option to upgrade their troops equipment.  This upgrade is universal among both their armies, affecting all troops controlled by that Lordship "One Turn" after the purchase of the upgrade is made.

I was under the impression that a tier purchase can't be used until the following week.

It happens immediately.

Can't read your own rules, Mad Dawg? This is beyond preferential treatment. This is cheating. You are openly and shamelessly acting in opposition to your own published rules. I can't take any ruling you make seriously anymore, and I'd much rather have someone that isn't in your clan have the authority to make decisions regarding these issues because it is becoming increasingly apparent that not all of the current administrators possess a thorough understanding of the rules and may be biased.

 

[Snoop]

So when will Tehlrog be played? Tomorrow night? Now it seems LES won't being joining us

Although I'm glad we waited for LES to show up and some of RA, really engagements should start on time unless there is a technical difficulty. If a clan can't be there at the start or decided to leave early and abandon their allies then so be it.

 

[Fehnor]

I don't speak for my clan, or for ROCK, or anything. This is one man to another:

I wish you had said something about this last night. We would have played it with the 3 people we had. Ranting now is pretty pointless, except to throw a tantrum. I have searched you post for some sort of suggestion as to how to move forward, and there's nothing. What do you suggest we do now that we're in this ****hole?

P.S: It was ****ing midnight on Sunday when you wanted to start this match. That is not "reasonable" in any ****ing way. This match would have lasted at least two hours.

 

[RoBo_CoP]

I wish you had said something about this last night. We would have played it with the 3 people we had. Ranting now is pretty pointless, except to throw a tantrum. I have searched you post for some sort of suggestion as to how to move forward, and there's nothing. What do you suggest we do now that we're in this ****hole?

Well he did suggest we take the 10% loss as per the wappaw and gk ruling. Which would mean moving forward to the next turn. ****hole avoided.

P.S: It was ****ing midnight on Sunday when you wanted to start this match. That is not "reasonable" in any ****ing way. This match would have lasted at least two hours.

Both yours and Marnids points are valid, but another route should have been taken: The second engagement should have been rescheduled well before hand knowing that one engagement+a NASTe match was occuring on the same day. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but i find it kinda rediculous that it was expected that many people to stick around for that long and not think something would happen. SOMEONE with the authority to reschedule should have done so and avoided this non-sense from the start of the turn. Im in accordance that we take the 10% loss for the turn, as the last shenanigan similar to this was resolved the same way. It seems unfair to punish us further, but equally unfair to allow us the leave and just do it tomorow as far as rules go. So the only reasonable choice seems to me is to take the 10%. The rules should be more strict on this happening, however, scheduling should be done better in the future to avoid the situation as best as possible, not book everything on the same day and think it'll all work out.

Spoiler

As i'm the lowly peasant of Warband, I had no control over the situation and this is purely my personal opinion. Also Fehnor, less rhage plz.

As for Marnids other points, they seem to me, valid.

 

[blak]

The best precedent for tonight's second siege event is the Ra + LES vs. Balion siege of Sargoth. In that siege, one whole lordship failed to make an appearance for the entire duration of the battle (Ra). The engagement was resolved normally in their absence. Tonight, the same situation occurred inversely. KoA did not feel they could stick around for the siege, but TLB had several players on and all participating Rebel lordships had representation. It is my understanding that the garrison forces are taking a 10% penalty for the no-show, but that is significantly less than the losses they would have incurred had TLB fought alone despite KoA's absence. Likewise, the losses LES received at Sargoth fighting alone could have been considerably lessened had Ra shown up to support as they were supposed to.

Before anyone even mentions the late start for tonight's siege, I'd like to clarify two things. First, the siege was held until LES finished a scheduled match for another tournament. ROCK administrators were fully aware of this scheduling conflict, yet the time for tonight's siege was not changed. Secondly, there was no set time for the second siege to begin. All participants knew that it would begin after the conclusion of the first, so it is not unreasonable to expect the participating teams to be prepared for a long session, especially given the fact that they had plenty of notification beforehand. There was no established "deadline" for the first siege, no threshold, no upper limit. Everyone on the Rebel side was prepared to fight both engagements, and TLB stuck around until it became apparent that the siege wasn't going to be fought, at which point they dissipated.

An entire group of lordships showed up, and half of the opposition's lordships showed as well. When this happened in the LES + Ra vs. Balion siege, it was played regardless of LES' disadvantage. Here, the entire siege was moved to Monday to avoid disadvantaging KoA. I've already made clear my position on last-minute Monday-night deadlines, it's absolute bull**** to expect teams to gather all of their players on 24 hours notice on the weekday of weekdays. It's also inconsistent to punish one team (LES) for their ally's mistake but not another team (TLB) for their ally's mistake.

Precedent dictates that the siege should have been fought tonight as it stood, with the assembled Rebel forces against TLB and any of the KoAs that could stay. Precedent dictates such, because it was founded when Balions defended the city of Sargoth against a combined force of Ra and LES and the engagement was resolved in the absence of Ra, regardless of the disadvantage conferred to LES by the circumstances.

Now I'll ask the important question.

What kind of bull**** show are you running where you'll give preferential treatment to the same side repeatedly, regardless of precedent or circumstance?

Even the GK @ Chalbek resolution displays favoritism. Harald already said he expected a higher penalty for refusing to play at a scheduled time - even though he had plenty of players to do so - but was only given the standard penalty of 10% for failing to show. It is one thing not to show up at all, but quite another to show up and essentially tell the entire enemy team to **** off because you don't like the rules. I seriously doubt GK harbors any ill-will or resentment for the opposing parties (ergo, I'm sure they didn't say "**** off," they're much too classy), but refusing to play under the accepted rules is beyond a simple scheduling conflict. Why was the penalty not greater for what is obviously rejection of the agreed-upon rule set? It's not failing to show up, it's neglect of the rules. I could argue as to why it's even a violation of the rules, but I won't push this point any further. I still like GK, I'm just arguing the principle of the matter, but I'd like to avoid offense.

Speaking of those funny rules, why are there grey areas regarding certain campaign mechanics? I'm especially curious about upgrades. I asked for Mad Dawg's reasoning on one of these particular issues, but he dodged my question and insisted on pushing tonight's first siege into gear regardless of the issues surrounding it. Why are besieged settlements capable of being upgraded? It makes absolutely no sense for a besieged castle to successfully undertake construction efforts outside of their walls, directly in front of their enemies. I would ask why none of the campaign administrators thought to question this obvious flaw in the rules, but I realize they have a vested interest in the matter because the castle in question is theirs. Therefore, I would like an answer to my question from those who run a significantly lower chance of being biased in this matter. What reasoning supports the conclusion that settlement upgrades are acceptable while the settlement in question is being actively besieged or raided?

Moving on, I found another post of interest to me regarding the troops inside Tehlrog castle this turn. That castle is currently besieged, and the siege would have been fought tonight. Please forgive me for the coming sarcasm, but I feel I should point it out because it might not be too obvious to some of you. Here it comes. It's a good thing that siege was rescheduled for Monday, because it's got some issues of its own! This concludes the sarcasm for now. Onto the issue at hand: why are troops that are locked inside of a castle under siege allowed to receive gear upgrades? Where does this gear come from? How does it get into the castle? Are the besieging armies considered absolutely retarded in this campaign, or did they lose track of the merry twits walking whimsically into the castle carrying armor and weapons as they talked amongst themselves about Curin's shiny new pallisade? I find it highly unlikely that any sort of upgrades could be carried out regarding a besieged settlement or the troops inside of it.

Finally, I'd like to further contest the gear upgrade for troops at Tehlrog Castle. The army in question belongs to TLB. TLB purchased a gear upgrade this turn, which is the same turn that an engagement involving them is to be resolved. The rule for upgrading troops is as follows:

Lordships will have the option to upgrade their troops equipment.  This upgrade is universal among both their armies, affecting all troops controlled by that Lordship "One Turn" after the purchase of the upgrade is made.

I was under the impression that a tier purchase can't be used until the following week.

It happens immediately.

Can't read your own rules, Mad Dawg? This is beyond preferential treatment. This is cheating. You are openly and shamelessly acting in opposition to your own published rules. I can't take any ruling you make seriously anymore, and I'd much rather have someone that isn't in your clan have the authority to make decisions regarding these issues because it is becoming increasingly apparent that not all of the current administrators possess a thorough understanding of the rules and may be biased.

I will not address any potential fallacies to the rulesets...I do not know the rules from top to bottom because I am not an admin so for all I know all of your points may be valid...I do know however raging on Mad Dawg and angrily trash-talking his decision making in an immature way doesn't help...present your argument like an adult and I'm sure Mad Dawg will respond accordingly and acknowledge any fault of his own.

If it turns out the rules allow for a settlement upgrade after said settlement is besieged you are right, that makes no sense. As for KoA's seige defense that was supposed to be played at midnight...you mentioned ROCK administrators starting the event late to wait for LES vs BkS...does any part of you feel grateful for Mad Dawg doing this? Had LES not been able to attend the seige...the Rebels lose a significant group of highly skilled fighters and likely get massacred in the seige.

Stop ****-talking Mad Dawg and at least acknowledge him trying to be considerate of all the clans. All of the modding and preparation for a large multi-clan event like this is A TON of work and he as well as the other ROCK Admins are trying their best. 

 

[Outlawed]

There is a huge difference between being considerate and being outright lop-sided, blak.

As we fought the first siege today, I really did laugh.

Forget about the upgrading castles under siege, forget about the 'loss' of upgraded troops for clans because their allies lack them (which should be remedied with intermediate tiers or even better fighting the battle in parts. Start the first 30% of deaths with Tier 1, then move on to Tier 2 for example) forget about the purchasable troop upgrades during blockades, forget about the weird turn order when one party can just simply wait to declare their movement orders, (your turn declaration should have ALL your stuff. Waiting for others to do stuff is silly. That's why I implicitly suggested the alternating turn order system) forget about forgetting your own rules for your own campaign.

All those HUGE issues I can forget, forgive and empathize with because this is the first NA Campaign in history. The 'organizers' or admins are having their first experience of this and they will fix stuff, I am certain.

That being said, there is an aspect of the campaign that is outright bull****.
And yes, I'm calling out everyone who makes the maps, designs, modifies..etc

First of all. This scene-ing idea is garbage. ALL Castles should have THE SAME structure and upgrade into the SAME castle structures. Adding keeps, gates, mazes, stairs, what have you should all be part of the upgrade purchased for the castle that is made very clear with pictures/demonstrations of what you're actually upgrading.

Why is this a problem?
When Ra fought the Balion+GK coalition in Tihr, I instructed my players to rush to the walls so we can hold our ladders and prevent the enemy from getting on the walls. After all, fighting for the wall, going up ladders in crossfires, trying to dodge enemy infantry attacks as you're going up and running time to the ladder/gate/backdoor is where most of the attacking casualties actually take place. To my surprise, when we reached THE ONLY gatehouse of the mighty City of Tihr the enemy was already on the walls, even though we rushed it. So the initial fight was GK+Balion trying to take THE ONLY gate house to the freaking CITY while we spawned further away from our own walls than they did. This in itself is the utter failure of the mapping system employed here.

Even without the palisade wooden wall today, the defenders had some keeps, a maze system at the back gate, TRAPS (see spoiler below) and spawned closer to their key defending points than the attackers. This is how a defending position should be set up. Most of the times I died was when I was trying to go up ladders or actually get into the castle. That's the whole point. One would assume the cities which generate more income and are larger would be much grander and much more defensible.

Tihr - attackers get on the walls quicker than defenders. The 'ladders' were actually planks which have no speed penalty when you're going up. They are also wider and allow for more people to go up the ladder while taking minimum archer fire. There was NO crossfire present on that map. We had 1 tower on which we could get our archers who would simply be shooting at the fronts of the enemy. The spawn was so far away from the gates that securing the backdoor AND the main entrance both meant that we as defenders had to group our guys up and try to fight the attackers who would constantly be at our walls off before we can even meet them at their ladder entrances. Furthermore, the walls themselves only stretched for so little. This meant the defending archers didn't get much chance to shoot the enemy running on their own walls causing the fight to really happen at defender spawn. The spawn itself had one entrance and was flanked by an alley way where attacker archers could get in and flank the defenders as they fought in their own spawn.

Curin - attackers have to run 64 seconds to the back gate, and 58 seconds to the front gate. Defenders run 26 seconds to the front gate and almost instantly at the back gate. Thats more than double time.. Defenders have a plethora of keeps in which to set up crossfires. Each ladder was set up so that 2 keeps with peep holes can shoot at the narrower, longer ladders as the attackers scaled them. The back gate was literally below the enemy spawn with a small short entrance and a ground, first and second floor where archers could set up and shoot at the incoming attackers who would easily get funneled by more defenders spawning seconds after they die;fully taking it was impossible for the attacking team. High, circular walls meant that attackers had to run a long distance on the walls which left them vulnerable to defender archer attacks from literally more than 3 different angles. The defender spawn had two entrances and also had a ceiling hole which allowed defending archers to get on the walls, jump behind attackers, or simply take defensive positions in two more high keeps at the back gate.

Now you ******** tell me that is balanced.
I have no problem with a castle or town being well defended.

But the way Tihr was setup in comparison really leaves me baffled and wondering how such bs could be made to pass. If anything, the maps should have been tested extensively before making them.
I don't know who the **** made Tihr, but may the wrath of Kthulu fall upon you lol.
When you stack odds like this, people are going to call you out, whether you meant it or not.

Claiming that it is balanced or that we had an option to 'map' our own **** is just redundant. A campaign should start with balanced maps and cities/towns should be considerably harder to take than some castles.

That is all I have to say about the campaign. All your rules and admins and scheduling and turns ...etc all that can be fixed with experience. But designing maps in that way is just lazy and one sided. If these are native maps, it makes it worse because that means you just assumed TW would get map balance right lol. If you had a mapper make this, then said mapper needs to l2design.

Spoiler: Traps at the back gate

So I tried to dodge an arrow as my shield broke by going left near the enemy spawn towards the last 50 kills or so when defenders were at their main spawn point.
I went left into what looked like a flat surface. Then this happened.

GF, mapper.

 

[blak]

I agree these are all serious balance issues...let me address tihr...all of these maps are derived from their single-player versions...Mad Dawg specifically put the option to mod the maps in the ruleset so that defenders are given every opportunity to make the map how they see fit. Because of the large scale of the ROCK campaign Mad Dawg elected to go with Single-player versions of each settlement in order to avoid making ROCK a 3 month project. The night the Tihr seige was to be played Mad Dawg informed me that his version of Tihr had been corrupted and that he was at work and I needed to edit Tihr so that it could be used in the ROCK event. I worked as fast as I could to complete an 8 item checklist including moving the ENTIRE city back to the corner of the map to give the attackers a 30 second run to the walls so that the defenders could gain a favorable position (ended up being ~25 because the map had no more room to move the city back further). The lack of ladders is my fault and I apologize...I was in a hurry and didn't even think about the speed delay. As soon as I saw Curin yesterday I cringed because I thought about how much more defensible that castle was as opposed to Tihr.

All of these are very valid points and I am sorry...

But you must realize this campaign is a HUGE load of work and Mad Dawg has assumed ~50-60% of it all to himself and Kiss has put in nearly as much work himself. I AM ASKING that you guys please can the rage, sarcasm, and heckling....and let Mad Dawg resolve the issues...time is our biggest obstacle and Mad Dawg is doing his best.

 

[Outlawed]

But you must realize this campaign is a HUGE load of work and Mad Dawg has assumed ~50-60% of it all to himself and Kiss has put in nearly as much work himself. I AM ASKING that you guys please can the rage, sarcasm, and heckling....and let Mad Dawg resolve the issues...time is our biggest obstacle and Mad Dawg is doing his best.

Oh I do realize how much work is put into this.
That's why I said I can let go everything because I know its a learning experience for everyone involved.

But when it comes to maps, it really was a deciding factor. I can almost assure you that if Ra had a proper city we would have kept you guys off and if not, we would have caused similar casualties to those suffered by the Rebel Nords yesterday.

 

[blak]

As ROCK mappers it is our job to offer a suitable balanced map to play if the defenders do not have one to produce themselves...but you could have avoided an unbalanced Tihr by producing your own map...it's just that bad things happened that day and I had 1.5 hours to squeeze in the minimal amount of features into Tihr...which is not a lot of time.

 

[Outlawed]

The only reason I didn't look at the map is because I honestly trusted that you guys would present us with balanced maps for the campaign..

 

[KissMyAxe]

First of all, Marnid, as for the upgrade rule: you are absolutely right. It will be corrected. In fact, I feel guilty and responsible myself for not catching before you did. That said, if you are going to post in that tone again, please, don't bother! We're not going to read it. On the previous occasion I have made a point to communicate with you as calmly and constructively as I could, and I think it was successful as we came to an agreement. But now I can't be bothered, and I'm not sure Mad Dawg could (although it's his call).

You know what? I'm fed up with this consumerist attitude you have, guys. You have a team of people doing their best, working for free so that the community can have a good time. All you do is *****. That doesn't help and is counterproductive: in the face of the consumers trying to push too hard the most rational thing a provider of free goods can do is stop providing the goods. I, for one, am not going to be part  --as a developer or admin-- of any tournament/event anymore because it's just not worth it.

If you guys think the rules are a mess, the admins are crooked and the mappers have their hands growing out of their butts, here's how you can fix this: organize your own thing. I'd be really glad if you did, because if you succeeded and did something better -- that would be awesome; if you failed, at least you would have learned that for a complex thing like ROCK simple rules and flexibility are important to ensure it moves forward, that maps actually take a lot of time and skill to make, balanced maps doubly so (and even then, from my experience on GK siege, even the most balanced map will always be called out for being unbalanced --  and quality control there is much more rigorous, something we can't afford), and admining the whole thing while trying to contend with opinionated bastards is a great test for one's patience.

ROCK and all about community. It's up to you to play along and make the most of the set-up that the organizers gave to you. ROCK developers are mortals like everyone else: we might have gotten something terribly wrong, but, in my books, that's not a solid reason to hold grudges and like. You know why? Because we *did it* ---however terribly you might think--- but we still got this ROCK behemoth off the ground.

Now, a few assorted points:
* siege of Sargoth differs from Siege of Tehlrog because in the first Ra was nowhere to be found, and in the second KoA was right there. And as Fehnor has pointed out, you could have insisted that the siege would be played instead of postponing it.
* I haven't seen Tihr and I was away when the siege of Tihr happened. I think Blak has summed up it well. But let me add something: if you wanted Tihr to be certain way (e.g. have certain defenses etc), you had 2 months to do it. There were 3 sieges that turn and the maps had to be done at the last minute, and one of the primary mappers (me) was away. However, not that the rules say that the administration is only responsible for "minimal mapping" meaning adding ladders and openable gates to comply with the mapping guidelines (found in the ruleset). I'd like to add that *all* the castle/city maps are in compliance with those guidelines. Finally, I'd like to stress again that balance, especially for the Siege maps, is quite an elusive thing: I have mapped for GK Siege and I can tell you that I have seen castles that seemed defender biased be taken easily and vice versa. In my experience, the only reliable way to gauge the balance is to have that map played over and over again -- we just don't have that luxury. TL;DR: you think you can do better? Then bloody do it!
* Different maps *will* have different balance. If you want maps with equal balance, the only solution I see is to have the *same* map for all the castles/cities.

Finally, I would like to stress again that the intent of the campaign was (and still is) to be casual, semi-competitive. I think you guys are taking it way too seriously: this is not a tourney, and for a good reason.