cRPG

Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: Damug on July 27, 2011, 10:07:38 am

Title: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Damug on July 27, 2011, 10:07:38 am
My thoughts after sieging the castle tonight:
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Skeebie on July 27, 2011, 10:11:06 am
Siege towers can't be built on any kind of slope either, and stop "growing" if the wheels get moved too early.  Also, it might not be a bug, but when the siege towers were moving across the side of the hill, they would start turning downhill.

Catapults clipped through the siege shields at spawn as well.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Earthdforce on July 27, 2011, 10:21:00 am
The Catapult was having a problem on the hill for us defenders also. It was like floating a little bit..
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: PhantomZero on July 27, 2011, 10:21:06 am
Some of the names for parts on the equipment should be changed to more accurately describe how they function. Like instead of "Release the brake" just use "Forward" or "Backward".
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Tydeus on July 27, 2011, 10:23:58 am
60 second spawn timer shit is still a bit ridiculous, too easily abused.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: BcBKC on July 27, 2011, 10:25:14 am
From a defenders point of view.

40k xp in 50 minutes. That's less than x1. Sounds like its linked to kills according to chadz in irc. Increase it for castles and cities or switch it to time based xp system like crpg. Most player average x2 in cprg so i think that's a good place to start.

1 hour time blocks wont be enough for large fights. I expect some of these large castle and city battles with 4000-5000 tickets to last 3-5 hours easily.

Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Warcat on July 27, 2011, 10:26:14 am
I agree about the additional storages for mats. I like that towers can't easily go up hills, but I noticed their were some weird things going on with some of the siege equipment spawning mostly underground. At least with one catapult, trying to use it while it still was coming together may have helped. Also it may have been better to try this out on a sarranid castle instead of what looked to be a Rhodok castle. Really like the way catapults work though. As long as the attacking team has some organization and 10 people aren't using one, they're great.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Gumdrawp on July 27, 2011, 10:27:10 am
All siege equipment aside from siege towers should be repairable by throwing construction materials at it. Something like 1 material=5-10% hp sounds pretty fair. Especially considering catapults do considerable damage to themselves upon firing. Siege towers should be excluded from the list because it would likely be imbalanced to have everyone fill up their secondary slots with materials and repair it from inside.

Also hills make siege towers pretty useless as was already stated.

Also for some reason every time myself or tydeus tried to spawn with construction materials it would spawn us without helms and weapons. (happened to me twice before i managed to figure it out. Tydeus i believe it happened to a few times as well.)

3-5 Material stacks would make the initial part of the siege be a bit faster as well, but it may also imbalance it in favor of attackers. Building catapults/towers too fast after they break could be a serious issue for defenders and make it near impossible to stop attackers if they're coordinated enough.

Also I agree that the exp gain should be increased somewhere between 3-5 times of what it is now. 40k or so an hour is pathetic, even if it is tied to kills. Strategus should award more xp/hour than playing on normal servers and i average ~150-180k/hr on battle. This could also be offset for earning a large bonus amount of XP for winning the battle(unless this was already coded in and we just dont know because we didnt finish.)
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: PhantomZero on July 27, 2011, 10:32:16 am
Catapults can kill themselves with the rock if the arm is pulled all the way down and the block or whatever is fully extended, and sometimes if the catapult is on a hill.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Warcat on July 27, 2011, 11:09:18 am
I do think all siege equipment needs more hitpoints or the ability to repair them. And really, as much as I like archery, arrows shouldn't be able to do anything to siege equipment.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Olwen on July 27, 2011, 01:34:07 pm
mmmh, which castle was attacked ?
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Blondin on July 27, 2011, 01:57:39 pm
Defenders need fire arrows, don't know if it's'already possible, but with WSE may be fire arrows can be different of normal arrows.
Fire arrows :
More damage on construction
Less damage on human
Less range

and more complicated (and may be unbalance wise), we need big rocks and boiled oil!
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Gumdrawp on July 27, 2011, 03:12:39 pm
Quote from: Blondin on July 27, 2011, 01:57:39 pm
Defenders need fire arrows, don't know if it's'already possible, but with WSE may be fire arrows can be different of normal arrows.
Fire arrows :
More damage on construction
Less damage on human
Less range

and more complicated (and may be unbalance wise), we need big rocks and boiled oil!

Although realistic, i dont think these elements are needed for siege. About the only thing i could think of that would be a welcome addition would be a ballista to use against incoming siege towers for defenders. but the narrow castle walls would probably make that a pain in the ass to maneuver effectively.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Jarlek on July 27, 2011, 05:20:00 pm
Quote from: Olwen on July 27, 2011, 01:34:07 pm
mmmh, which castle was attacked ?
+1

EDIT: And also how did it go? What were the numbers? Who attacked? Small recap?
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Gumdrawp on July 27, 2011, 05:26:47 pm
Quote from: Zapper on July 27, 2011, 05:20:00 pm
+1

EDIT: And also how did it go? What were the numbers? Who attacked? Small recap?

notice how it says test siege. noone attacked a castle, it was a mock battle to test stuff out for chadz that he gave people troops and set it to a map. It was just a big QA test for him.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Jarlek on July 27, 2011, 05:35:55 pm
Quote from: Gumdrawp on July 27, 2011, 05:26:47 pm
notice how it says test siege. noone attacked a castle, it was a mock battle to test stuff out for chadz that he gave people troops and set it to a map. It was just a big QA test for him.
And this was something I should have understood from a simple "test siege"? What I thought was that someone attacked a castle in strat to check out how it works. No need to be so hostile.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Elerion on July 27, 2011, 05:43:21 pm
How was he hostile?
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Remy on July 27, 2011, 05:47:19 pm
He did not include enough smiley faces...
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Panoply on July 27, 2011, 05:51:18 pm
Not sure how badly hills affected siege towers, but in real life, siege towers were also pretty useless on hills.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: PhantomZero on July 27, 2011, 06:11:04 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


It would have been different if chadz hadn't set up the siege event and map for the purpose of testing the siege equipment   :P

This was definitely a "ladder" castle and not a tower one.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: legionarei on July 27, 2011, 08:05:59 pm
Avant-garde modern art siege towers forever.

I know this is probably way beyond the ability of the code but it would be really nice to have say - an item that gave ONE PERSON the ability to operate equipment. I was kinda busy soaking up arrows and trying to keep Gaga from being killed (horribly) but one of the big problems was everyone thinking they were "helping" and messing with the equipment. If battle commanders could buy a certain amount of the control items and assign them to siege commanders it might help with the random team member messing around with the stuff.

This may have been more of an issue since both sides recruited anyone they could get and wouldn't happen in a more organized army, but it might still be helpful to think about.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: Warcat on July 27, 2011, 08:27:49 pm
Yeah, the issue with many people operating is purely an organization issue. I don't think anything needs to be made to fix that.
Title: Re: Test Siege Discussion
Post by: dodnet on July 27, 2011, 08:38:24 pm
Some more pics:

(click to show/hide)