(suggestion)Siege battle money.

[Dudro]

I played siege n castle 3 today, and was astounded by the huge amount of casualties the attackers sustained.  The leader on the other team had about a 25 surplus, while all the other team members scores reflected this.  However, the leader on our team had a 5 surplus, and almost everyone else was negative. 

I propose that in sieges the attackers earn more money per kill and/or assist, if they were to be implemented.

The only castle I did this on was castle 3, and when I played castle 1, the attackers one, so I'm not sure if that's just the way it ought to be, or castle one fails.

Well?

 

[Emciel]

money needs to be rethought in siege
attackers never get good equipment, and even defenders struggle to keep the best stuff

 

[Commodore_Frank]

Yeah, both sides struggle a bit to keep the good gear, though it's easier on the defending side. A rework of the system for Siege would definitely be nice.

 

[Snook]

I'm mostly worried about attackers. I have NEVER gotten even to mid-tier armor as an attacker, and have to struggle to hold on to my mid-tier weaponry. I'll add that I generally spend money with a focus on offense. As a defender, cash seems about right. I generally can hold on to mid-tier armor and weps, sometimes even getting to some of the highest armors.

In siege, it isn't uncommon to see the attackers with 3 or 4 times as many deaths and half to a quarter as many kills as defenders, and it's the worst when Nords defend. Their ungodly prowess at melee (read: PICK TEH LONG AXE AND SWINGS A LOTS) means attackers die in waves.

Make killing defenders worth 2x or 2.5x as much, OR make killing attackers worth 50% or 40% of the current gold value you get. It might not even have to be that drastic; I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass.

 

[Dudro]

Well good, because they certainly seem like ****TY numbers.

 

[Snook]

Well good, because they certainly seem like ****TY numbers.

How very constructive. Where are yours?

 

[Amroth]

I noticed this a lot, too.  From a plot viewpoint the defenders might have better gear because they're hold up in a castle with supplies, while the attackers are mobile and can't be weighed down.  However, the a game play standpoint the attackers should get a gold bonus of some sort.

 

[Dudro]

Well good, because they certainly seem like ****TY numbers.

How very constructive. Where are yours?

You pulled them out of your ass, so they are ****ty.  S'joke man.

 

[Berserker Pride]

I noticed this a lot, too.  From a plot viewpoint the defenders might have better gear because they're hold up in a castle with supplies, while the attackers are mobile and can't be weighed down.  However, the a game play standpoint the attackers should get a gold bonus of some sort.

From a real standpoint I think the attackers would want as much metal between them and defenders arrows as possible.  Attacking a castle is a job for armed and armored soldiers not peasants in shirts and cowhide.

 

[Amroth]

True.  But there is also the meat shield concept and overwhelming numbers to an attack strategy, as well.  Get all the peasants and get them in the first wave to take the arrows for the veterans.

 

[Berserker Pride]

Well if you were never intending to win in the first place. Sending peasants to soak arrows was good pop control.  In any case who do you think put the ladders next to the walls? But back to the point if any side is short numbers it is usually the attackers in siege.  Everyone tries to go defenders because they get way more kills.

 

[Ros]

The rains of arrows that Vaegirs spawn on siege defense are very painful. It felt like there was nothing we could do with our flimsy swad shields, they just kept coming and coming. . .
Also, I think arrows to the feet need to do less damage and or make it harder to hit there.

 

[Amroth]

Well if you were never intending to win in the first place. Sending peasants to soak arrows was good pop control.  In any case who do you think put the ladders next to the walls? But back to the point if any side is short numbers it is usually the attackers in siege.  Everyone tries to go defenders because they get way more kills.

I usually see the defenders having the most kills.

 

[Berserker Pride]

Everyone tries to go defenders because they get way more kills.

That's what I said.  But in any case money for attackers needs to go up somehow. As a defender I could consistently afford a siege crossbow.  I would never be able to manage the same as an attacker.

 

[MagicMaster]

Here is a simple suggestion that may fix this money problem, because I have noticed it a lot too.

Defender formula for money remains the same.
Attackers get refunded for ALL of the equipment they were wearing when they are killed.

This way the defenders have to be more careful about being reckless, because each defender killed is a bit more money for the attackers, and killing attackers, well, really does nothing besides delay them.

Might fix people jumping off the walls .
Also, with this, some of the back doors in castle one and possibly two would have to be removed to keep it balanced.

 

[Berserker Pride]

It might work.  You would have to slow down money gain for attackers in that case. It would have a cool feature of making every attacking wave stronger than the last.

 

[Seawied86]

I noticed this a lot, too.  From a plot viewpoint the defenders might have better gear because they're hold up in a castle with supplies, while the attackers are mobile and can't be weighed down.  However, the a game play standpoint the attackers should get a gold bonus of some sort.

From a real standpoint I think the attackers would want as much metal between them and defenders arrows as possible.  Attacking a castle is a job for armed and armored soldiers not peasants in shirts and cowhide.

historically there have been many battles where peasants have had to defend castles with only the most meager of equipment. Having an armed castle full of armored guard was a luxury only afforded by the most wealthy

 

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'd like to see more money for both sides (and especially the defenders).

I mean, what's the point of having all the sweet gear available to buy if we can hardly ever afford it?

CR