cRPG

cRPG => Scene Editing => Topic started by: Elindor on July 28, 2013, 11:09:21 pm

Title: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Elindor on July 28, 2013, 11:09:21 pm
Fips and I had loosely conversed about the possibility of a separate rotation for NA siege due to the fact that its pretty drastic population difference from EU siege makes the map balances rather different - basically NA siege usually has much less population and certain maps do not work well with a low population and end up shrinking that population further.

I believe that if we make a slightly adjusted NA siege rotation removing certain maps that NA siege will generally do better in population.

I would remove the following maps for the above reasons:

- Hrafninn Castle
(click to show/hide)

- Ibdeles Castle
(click to show/hide)

- Burg Rabenstein
(click to show/hide)

- Ridoma Castle
(click to show/hide)

** These are all fine maps, just with the limited NA population they do not play well.

We could look at other maps to add instead if we needed to.  Usually closer, smaller maps work best - such as Inch Tuth, Himmelsberg, Sea Raid, Winter Castle, Almerra Castle, etc.

Thoughts?  I'd love to hear from other NA guys too and let me know if you think I've selected the right ones to remove, if there are more that you would remove, etc.  I am trying to keep in mind that sometimes NA siege does have a decent population, but much of the time we have more like 15 v 15.

Title: Re: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Elindor on July 30, 2013, 07:40:37 pm
...anyone?

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Jarold on July 30, 2013, 08:39:20 pm
I love those maps that you say should be removed. I really would hate to see them go. I don't find it hard to attack or defend on low pop. Unless it's like 10 ppl.

Also that was really funny second post. XD
Title: Re: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Fips on July 30, 2013, 10:41:57 pm
Some general informations on why NA left siege would be pretty nice. Maybe just make a thread about it in the discussion? I think it would be better if one of you NAs made it, but if not, i will do it myself.
And if it's about the maps then we'll just ask people what was wrong about them.

And if that doesn't lead to any solutions we will adjust the rotation for the low population, well, what we will do anyway, but still xd
Title: Re: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Elindor on July 30, 2013, 10:58:15 pm
I can give it a shot.  I think maps has been the most commonly cited reason.

NA also has this curse where the players think that Battle = good players and Siege is for noobs.
Title: Re: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Fips on July 30, 2013, 11:16:18 pm
Quote from: Elindor on July 30, 2013, 10:58:15 pm
I can give it a shot.  I think maps has been the most commonly cited reason.

NA also has this curse where the players think that Battle = good players and Siege is for noobs.

If maps are the main problem i really don't know why EU siege is so much more populated than EU battle. Today siege had 110 players and battle had 45 o_O
Title: Re: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Wolfsblood on July 30, 2013, 11:23:32 pm
Siege is for nabs.

Rangefest

Bad maps.

Plate crutchers

Skilless maulers.

These are reasons I have heard from players who don't play seige. I for one only play when the are around 25 people on and even then it isn't all that fun. I prefer high pop servers. Only seen na hit 60 once or twice in the last 2 months though :(
Title: Re: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Canuck on July 30, 2013, 11:23:54 pm
Mostly the problem with NA is that generally, the less people there are, the less people there are. You know? Like I loved siege when I first started playing a year ago. And the population problem wasn't as bad back then, or it didn't seem that way. It isn't just the maps, it's the fact that some of the real dedicated NA siege people/clans have stopped playing or moved to battle because they can actually have fun there for longer than a few maps. Lots of people will stick around for a bit even if they aren't winning, but when you are consistently stuck on certain maps which favour one side more than the other with low numbers it kills the fun and the server.
Title: Re: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Jarold on July 30, 2013, 11:47:08 pm
It's not the maps that kills siege, it's the players. Only a few dedicated players in NA love them some siege. The rest have to play Battle or else their k/d e-peen will die off.
Title: Re: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Adalwulf on July 31, 2013, 12:05:03 am
Quote from: Jarold on July 30, 2013, 11:47:08 pm
It's not the maps that kills siege, it's the players. Only a few dedicated players in NA love them some siege. The rest have to play Battle or else their k/d e-peen will die off.

This is it. NA siege used to be about 2-3 clans on at the same time duking it out. KUTT has quit, MB is smaller then it used to be and Astralis also has diminished in size. Truth of the matter is, Crpg in NA is dying faster then in EU. That's all it is really, dedicated players leaving the mod and the newer ones going to the more populated server.
Title: Re: Separate NA Siege Rotation Suggestion
Post by: Elindor on July 31, 2013, 04:44:40 am
I agree with all this to some degree....but the only thing we can effect here is things pertaining to the maps and map rotations, so thats why Im focusing on that aspect of it to see what we can do.  Make sense?  Maps are not the MAIN problem, but if they are a small part of the problem they are the only part we can influence here.

Also, battle will often peak with like 110 players and siege will have like 20.  If 20 of the ones from battle went to siege we'd have 80 in battle and 40 in siege, would be great for both servers.