cRPG
cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ubereem on June 09, 2013, 05:35:01 pm
-
Now I don't even need to start the game to see if NA Siege is dead. Thanks. *blinks blinks*
-
i dont see a servers tab
-
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=tavernserverslist
-
what he said
for instance it says nA siege has 9 people in it whooo hooo!! just enough for multi's :shock:
-
Why is it that EU seems to populate siege so much more than NA?
SUPPORT NA2!
-
Why is it that EU seems to populate siege so much more than NA?
I think EU maybe have jobs or they aren't as chatty. IMO NA battle is filled with no-jobers and people who like to chat it up while they wait. Siege players want to kill and be killed not shoot the shit while they wait upwards of 3-4 minutes. I prolly should not of said that but fuck it bring on the thumbs.
NA battle lately is fkin lame. Every round ends the same. Waiting minutes for some xcav to die or watching some poor miserable archers run for the lives. I remember being kicked for delaying when I first started... the good ol days.
Clarification: I understand why battle is fun and yes one life is more intense and meaningful in a lot of ways.
Further Clarification: People think siege is for nubs but riddle me this, going one round of 6 minutes in battle without dying is easy and fairly common but try going one round of siege without dying
-
I prolly should not of said that but fuck it, bring on the thumbs.
This man speaks some truth.
Actually, it used to be the common conception that "siege was for scrubs" and that battle was where anyone decent played (maybe that still is the common conception)....but I'd have to say that over time, the average skill level in siege has increased steadily, and a lot of "battle players" have been frequenting siege more lately.
I don't hate on either, but I think the NA community does need to give NA2 some lovin'....siege is fun. I find siege to be better to just get on and fight people, probably more fighting per minute overall, and honestly I find I get in more 1v1's in siege than in battle. And less cav and archers :)
-
siege indeed is easier skill-wise, there are more beginners. On the level of tactics however, siege is way more complex than battle where staying in one group is enough to make your team win.
From my experience, i think NA is quite shitty at siege tactics. I already saw how they played and i had to cry (in the end i was ban polled for my rage)
-
siege indeed is easier skill-wise, there are more beginners.
Lately this has been becoming less and less true.
A lot of times now when NA2 becomes decently populated, the top half of each team is dominated by VERY strong players - at any gamemode.
Siege is maybe more "hit or miss" in this way than battle - at times there are more beginners on and at other times it is stacked with very experienced players.
---
I agree with the tactics though...most of the time its just TDM....which is why I still think we need a TDM server since I theorize that's what most people really want :)
-
SUPPORT NA2!
I read that wrong
-
I sign into c-rpg and then connect to NA1 and always have a good time because people always play there, and it's usually the better players who play there. I never have to check if people are playing, because they always are.
NA2 is where the little kids go who can't hack it against all classes of players. Also the maps suck dick on siege. Stop splitting the server population, come on over to NA1 (it's been peaking at 140 population at night)
-
....orrrrrr we could have 2 very populated servers instead of 140 people in battle making it rediculous and like 20 in siege making it struggle with critical mass. Instead we could have 100 people in battle and 60 in siege :)
And I know why you don't play it - your cav!
Siege cav best cav. :mrgreen:
-
it's been peaking at 140 population at night
I never really understood the appeal of playing in a server with more than 30 or so players.
-
I never really understood the appeal of playing in a server with more than 30 or so players.
The more people are on the server, the more unsuspecting couch victims there are for cav.
-
I never really understood the appeal of playing in a server with more than 30 or so players.
I wish we could play on battlefields with 1000's vs 1000's, re-enacting actual wars and such. The more the merrier.
Even if I wasn't cav, I'd still never leave the battle server unless it was for a strat battle. I never liked having the community server competing for players, because it was the same game mode as NA1.
-
When I kill someone, I enjoy making them dead. I don't want them to respawn and let them have another go at me.
There are no real repercussions in Siege to a single player.
-
There should be the current map too. So I can always see when Yaragar is running :P
-
When I kill someone, I enjoy making them dead. I don't want them to respawn and let them have another go at me.
There are no real repercussions in Siege to a single player.
Sorry forgot about this point as well. Very big reason why I play battle over siege. Everyone has one life per round in the battle servers, make it count.
-
When I kill someone, I enjoy making them dead. I don't want them to respawn and let them have another go at me.
There are no real repercussions in Siege to a single player.
lmao so if it was a siege map with battle rule-set(1 life) you'd play?
-
lmao so if it was a siege map with battle rule-set(1 life) you'd play?
I would...pending other non-baddies played there. Actually I probably wouldn't. I would support the battle game mode on siege type of maps where the majority of people play.
Oh wait, they already play a bunch of enclosed village maps on the battle server. Problem solved. :P
-
Why is it that EU seems to populate siege so much more than NA?
SUPPORT NA2!
In Europe, it's perefctly normal to enjoy C-rpg whereas in NA it is entirely unacceptable. Therefore you cannot play the game type that you enjoy.