cRPG

cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: Penitent on August 30, 2014, 08:02:58 pm

Title: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Penitent on August 30, 2014, 08:02:58 pm
Hey, something amazing happened this morning -- people were playing in siege instead of battle.  It wasn't even a conquest map.  Even now, at 1pm, siege has a healthy population.  This has not happened in a long time, and it's a beautiful thing.  However, there is a specific reason this happened today, and I want to discuss it.

Very early this morning, there was a dude fucking around on siege.  He had FIVE computers going, each with a different character, all in siege.  He was "playing" 5 characters at once.  (I won't give his name away in case he gets in trouble).  This by itself is strange, yet unremarkable -- however, since it looked like 5 people were playing siege early in the morning, and none in battle, other people started joining.  By the time only 3 people joined, we were able to have 8 players and win a multiplier.  This encouraged yet MORE people to join.  After a while the dude with 5 bots playing left, but the deed had been done: Siege was jump started and people are still playing it even up until this very moment.  This weirdo with 5 computers and 5 CD keys single-handedly saved NA Siege for the day.  To be honest, I don't think that is what he set out to do, but even so -- he is an amazing genius and hero.  This got me thinking:  How can we keep this going?

My idea I want to discuss: What do other players think about having a few bots in Siege (like 3-5) when the server is empty?  The bots would go away once a few real players joined.  This would accomplish a few things.  1) people would be more likely to join the empty server and get things going.  2) only a handful of players would be needed to get the "8-player multi minimum" and therefore reach a point when larger groups of others are likely to join.

Many many players say they would play siege if it wasn't empty all the time -- yet no one wants to be the first lonely soul in the server.  This may be just what we need to jump-start some life back in to NA siege.  Let me know what you think!

Whatever the consensus, I applaud the eccentric Sir who allowed NA Siege another change at life today.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: gallonigher on August 30, 2014, 08:09:09 pm
now you tell us who it was
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Chosen1 on August 30, 2014, 08:15:14 pm
Quote from: Penitent on August 30, 2014, 08:02:58 pm
My idea I want to discuss: What do other players think about having a few bots in Siege (like 3-5) when the server is empty?  The bots would go away once a few real players joined.  This would accomplish a few things.  1) people would be more likely to join the empty server and get things going.  2) only a handful of players would be needed to get the "8-player multi minimum" and therefore reach a point when larger groups of others are likely to join.

Well no one likes playing with bots, and if this is implemented people will know that those 5 people it says are in the server are just bots.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: WITCHCRAFT on August 30, 2014, 08:27:10 pm
Quote from: gallonigher on August 30, 2014, 08:09:09 pm
now you tell us who it was

who wants to take bets on who it is
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: tisjester on August 30, 2014, 08:28:24 pm
Bots do kinda suck, but it would be a hell of a lot better than a big fat 0.

Said bots better be on hard mode.

As someone who loves siege, I'm willing to try anything.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Thryn on August 30, 2014, 08:40:06 pm
Quote from: WITCHCRAFT on August 30, 2014, 08:27:10 pm
who wants to take bets on who it is

spookfans


gimme my money
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Rico on August 30, 2014, 08:42:08 pm
I blame OP :mrgreen:

Acting suspiciously unsuspicious :lol:
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jack1 on August 30, 2014, 09:27:51 pm
In order for bots to be added there would have to be AI paths added to every non native map(assuming that they allready are not). That would take many hours of no-fun labor.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Penitent on August 30, 2014, 09:34:04 pm
If AI pathing has to be put in, the idea may be dead in the water.   But note this: the guy that was playing 5 characters was only actually using one at a time.  The other 4 were stationary -- and people still joined.  Even bots that just stand there and block or get slaughtered may be better than nothing.

If there were 5 bots, it's true people would know that the 5 players in there are bots -- but people like me would still join the server to fight bots for 5 or 10 mins in hopes of someone else joining.  This is a much better prospect than joining the server with 0 players and just jerking off while you wait...which no one does really.

In terms of the identity of the multi-boxer -- I think Tydeus knows who it was, since he joined the server and started using the show names cheat.  I tried to stick up for the unknown hero, and explain to Ty what he had actually accomplished.  However, the fate of the anonymous genius remains unknown.

Edit: ok ok, I'll tell you what I know.  The guy with 5 players just had them named "Baby3, Baby4, Baby5, Baby6, Baby7."  They were all peasants.  I love you Baby.  I'll never forget you.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Voncrow on August 31, 2014, 01:28:20 am
This seems like the lazy way out, EU has more than shown that siege after dying can easily be populated again, the only thing stopping us is ourselves. Here's the solution, when you see no one in siege, go to battle and ask people to do siege, then go to siege. If that doesn't work, then too bad, it's the community that's the problem. The greatest example of this is when I got me and 4 other hessians on siege with gallo and one other siege regular, that's 7 people. We waiting for about 30 mins to an hour until most of us decided to leave. Siege then preceded to die until later that day. So if people are unwilling to join even with 7 people then I don't think the problem is something that can be or should  be fixed with bots. More than anything it's probably the mood of the average player that determines the fate of siege each day.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Penitent on August 31, 2014, 04:59:21 am
Quote from: Voncrow on August 31, 2014, 01:28:20 am
This seems like the lazy way out, EU has more than shown that siege after dying can easily be populated again, the only thing stopping us is ourselves. Here's the solution, when you see no one in siege, go to battle and ask people to do siege, then go to siege. If that doesn't work, then too bad, it's the community that's the problem. The greatest example of this is when I got me and 4 other hessians on siege with gallo and one other siege regular, that's 7 people. We waiting for about 30 mins to an hour until most of us decided to leave. Siege then preceded to die until later that day. So if people are unwilling to join even with 7 people then I don't think the problem is something that can be or should  be fixed with bots. More than anything it's probably the mood of the average player that determines the fate of siege each day.

Actually, NA is ahead of EU when it comes to population decay.  You will soon be in this position too.  Going to the battle server and trying to rally support used to work more often than it does now.  Siege is always empty, all week, at all times.  It's getting desperate for those of us who only really like siege, as well as those that simply prefer it.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tiger on August 31, 2014, 06:17:50 am
It would be funny to see the DTV round bosses as the bots on siege xD
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on August 31, 2014, 08:42:17 am
Quote from: Voncrow on August 31, 2014, 01:28:20 am
...siege after dying can easily be populated again, the only thing stopping us is ourselves.

Agree to disagree. With the current rotation where we jump around from 2 or so good siege maps in a row, to an at least 1 hour conquest map, then to another good ole siege map, and then to a siege-turned-conquest map which sucks with 30 second defense respawns... NA2 just isn't siege anymore. The only people that join the server and stick around for any extended period of time are those that simply play this game for fun. Too many people are obsessed with the grind-y aspects of this mod (with good reason... the higher level you get the better you get, the better you get the more fun you can have... no one wants to be a level 15 peasant for too long) since being at a low level, or not having so many looms, proves to be a huge disadvantage. Maybe we can muster 5 or so siege fans who couldn't care less if siege even gave xp or gold. Well, that is a whopping 5 people. Everyone else who shows up to both have fun, and of course get their reward of xp/gold. The current rotation is absolutely horrid and scares away any who come for the rewards. Got a multiplier after a couple of the siege maps? Great, because now you will be stuck on defense on a siege-turned-conquest map where you are pretty much guaranteed to lose. And what comes after that loss? A real conquest map, with at least 2 full 30 minute rounds (hurray perma x2!). Then as if that vicious cycle isn't bad enough, there is the literally broken conquest map that never ends (Shariz, I think its name was).

Whenever people are stuck on a conquest map and have to deal with an hour of x2, they more often than not leave. Whenever people get stuck on the defending side in a siege-turned-conquest map with an x5 up until then, they will probably leave out of pure rage due to their multi being "stolen." Lastly, whenever Shariz comes around, MAYBE people will play through the first round (probably only those with high enough multipliers), but since it can't end everyone inevitably leaves if no admins can be contacted quickly enough to change the map. People won't even stick around to wait for an admin since no xp is given once the timer runs out. This mod encourages getting the most xp/gold as quickly as possible since it only makes the game better down the road, and with such an unstable rotation, it is no wonder people have all but abandoned NA2. At least in NA1 if you are stuck on the losing team, there is always the hope for valor (which almost never happens in a fully drawn-out siege round), or the chance that next map (which is never too long away) you will be on the winning side. If you are stuck on an x2 on a conquest map, there is neither hope of being on the winning team or getting valor for at least 30 minutes. Not to mention that in NA1 you can win a round an start improving your multiplier within minutes. If you join and siege is on a conquest map, you are gonna be waiting a good long while to increase the multi... almost no one joins NA2 while a conquest map is on.

Back when conquest was removed from NA2, we at least got the server up and running most nights during primetime and could keep it going for a good 2 hours, 3 if lucky. And that was plenty, really. True that it was a shame you couldn't just hop on whenever you wanted to enjoy some siege action, it was still far better than no siege at all. Besides, not many of us play more than 2 or 3 hours a day (I hope so, anyways), so that was all the time you needed to get your daily crpg fix. Nowadays... you know how it is. Maybe if a whole clan, or an organized NA1 to NA2 migration occurs, siege can get started up. However, it dies out sooner than ever before for the above reasons. People are willing to play siege, but people are unfortunately not willing to part with their sweet, sweet xp.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Morris on September 01, 2014, 10:37:40 am
Quote from: Penitent on August 30, 2014, 09:34:04 pm
But note this: the guy that was playing 5 characters was only actually using one at a time

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Byrdi on September 01, 2014, 12:08:13 pm
How about just lowering the required multi population to 5, 4 or even less?

I have never seen anyone cheat by abusing low pop.
A minimum of 8 players for multi is a completely arbitrary number, it could just as well be less.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 01, 2014, 06:52:23 pm
The main problem with siege, at least for NA players, is that there is simply not enough thick-skin in our side of the community. Players get dealt one or two quick losses in a row, say fuck this, and they leave. And unfortunately, with the additional tampering of the server, and the constant bashing of it in the battle server, those vacancies are hard to fill and very noticeable. As for populating it, a clan could do it, just to get it going, but until large clans start giving siege their time again, at least periodically, it will continue to be the red headed step child when comparing servers.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Voncrow on September 01, 2014, 07:18:20 pm
(click to show/hide)
I wasn't even talking about conquest, I completely forgot about conquest, I don't like to think about the fact that half of the siege server is something other than siege, Conquest is just an affront to the multi system in general. I was talking about it prior to even conquest first coming on.

Also

Quote from: Tanken on September 01, 2014, 06:52:23 pm
The main problem with siege, at least for NA players, is that there is simply not enough thick-skin in our side of the community. Players get dealt one or two quick losses in a row, say fuck this, and they leave. And unfortunately, with the additional tampering of the server, and the constant bashing of it in the battle server, those vacancies are hard to fill and very noticeable. As for populating it, a clan could do it, just to get it going, but until large clans start giving siege their time again, at least periodically, it will continue to be the red headed step child when comparing servers.

This, this is the problem. The first step to saving siege is taking the lead yourself. If you are in a clan, and want to play siege, get your clanmates on. Try to recruit other people as well and you'll probably get population. Then it's a waiting game, people will notice and eventually come.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tojo on September 01, 2014, 07:50:19 pm
Get rid of conquest mode add capture the flag. CTF would be a rage ball style map with flags to capture at both ends.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: lombardsoup on September 01, 2014, 08:07:23 pm
Barely anyone plays on NA 2, its been in that state for months.

Close it down, less crap to manage.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Clockworkkiller on September 01, 2014, 09:31:45 pm
Fuck crpg, let's all go play full invasion 2
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: lombardsoup on September 01, 2014, 09:37:30 pm
There's always the dreaded "other games" route
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: kwhy on September 02, 2014, 04:28:34 pm
Like Jona said, the new conquest mode on Siege Maps with one flag seems pointless breaking the low population spawn time plus (from what I've seen so far) it makes it impossible to spawn as defender once the flag is contested (by even one person). 

Also some of the newer maps this year that have been added to the rotation seem play badly causing either instant wins or mass exodus of players.  This might be due to the population size and inability to open doors on some maps that can easily get ninja'd.

Conquest mode is fun IMO, but x1 modifier sucks the entire time playing it even though I'll stick around just to get some *siege* time in, but couldn't we have dynamic adjusting modifier for things like capturing the flag?  capture the flag and gain a modifier for team...lose the flag and it drops back down (both sides).  Something along those lines?

I agree with Tanken that typically all it takes to get NA siege going is for one or two good size clans just to populate the server and the players typically swarm to it and start playing, but once that clan leaves it slowly fizzles off again unfortunately.

I like playing both Battle, Siege, and Conquest, and it is a shame that these modes/maps can't just be rotated on one main server without people bitching and complaining about how this mode sucks or *siege* mode is for noobs ect, but that is just typical cRPG chatardation.


Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Penitent on September 02, 2014, 04:36:52 pm
Quote from: kwhy on September 02, 2014, 04:28:34 pm


I agree with Tanken that typically all it takes to get NA siege going is for one or two good size clans just to populate the server and the players typically swarm to it and start playing, but once that clan leaves it slowly fizzles off again unfortunately.


This is not true.  In fact, my experience shows that all it takes to get Siege going is about 5 players in the server, early in the morning.  It continued all day after that.

Also, I don't think that the reason siege is ignored is because of the maps, or because of conquest.  Most people just like Battle better.  They like the non-objective gameplay, and the one-life-to-live.  However, a large minority like Siege better because of the gameplay.  A few souls in the server solves everything, I've noticed.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 02, 2014, 05:59:10 pm
Fips briefly gave NA2 a dedicated rotation of maps that actually suit NA population levels (10-30) several months ago, but that only lasted a couple weeks until the next patch. If he's unwilling/unable to resurrect an NA-friendly map rotation, the only way to save the server would be to make sure the XP/gold are at least on par with Battle. There are a million ways to do that which have been discussed ad nauseam:

-Upkeep should be disabled when <8 players and "teams not fair". Low pop siege is just duel server with upkeep; get rid of the upkeep, and it will populate much faster.
-Fix the bugs on siege maps that have been converted to 1-flag conquest, like defenders being unable to spawn when the flag is contested and defender respawn being time being fixed at 30s
-Revamp multi system for the 30min conquest maps; your multi during Conquest shouldn't depend on the outcome of the previous siege map. Fixed rewards based on team performance at the end of the round (a la DTV) make much more sense on Conquest than the multiplier system.
-Valor is too rare on siege compared to battle; respawns mean everyone is alive and earning points the whole round, so the factor required for valor should be reduced
etc...
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 02, 2014, 07:56:38 pm
Quote from: Phew on September 02, 2014, 05:59:10 pm
-Valor is too rare on siege compared to battle; respawns mean everyone is alive and earning points the whole round, so the factor required for valor should be reduced
etc...

This has been a long standing issue that should have been addressed a long while ago, imo. In siege if your team loses, well, odds are that you lost your multi. Unless while on defense you were rushing the attacker spawn and slaughtering all the peasants left and right while 1 ninja capped your flag, thus ending the round in less than a minute, chances are you didn't get valor. The more people that lose their multi, the more people leave the game. Multis are as addicting as crack, and very few people will leave willingly on a high one. But in siege you currently have 50% of the server losing their multi after each and every round, which means up to 50% of the players will quit since they have just lost their long-standing multiplier. In the current state of the "siege" server, the most common cause of multi-losing is some awful imbalanced map, whether due to conquest spawn timers on a siege map or something else entirely (like the map where attackers can walk right in since the two doors both open from the outside). I don't know about everyone, but there is nothing more demoralizing for me than to lose due to some bullshit like that. Nothing kills the fun of siege faster than a map where one team has no chance of winning, and yet are stuck on the losing side each and every round.

Since conquest maps now have a slightly different xp system, where the minimum multiplier is x2, I don't see why the valor system can't also be tweaked for all of siege compared to battle. Honestly the valor requirement could practically be halved and we would only then get to see valor happen as often as it does in battle. The last time I saw valor pop up after a full round was when I went 124-28 or something crazy in a conquest round due to being on the clearly-overpowered team... which brings me to another point: team balance in conquest.

While it is now a widely-accepted fact that the balancer sucks in crpg, it seems to "shine" in conquest even more. The reason for this is with such long rounds people tend to drop in and out mid-round. There are few things more demoralizing than being on the attackers against a clan-stacked defensive team in conquest for a full 30 minutes straight. Communication is key in conquest, and for obvious reasons clans excel at that. I got that absurd KDR recently when I was on the defending team with much of my clan present, and our coordination/communication gave us a huge edge over the unorganized "pubs" that were attacking us. The attackers had many skilled players, but without any coordination it took them 28 out of 30 minutes to take the first capture point... the first of 6 on that map. I would recommend that the team balancer go into effect after each flag is captured, but in situations like this, that doesn't seem to be good enough. Maybe every 10 minutes, at least, the teams should be re-arranged. While this will undoubtedly prove a nuisance to many, it is unfortunately a must with the current 30 minute rounds of conquest. During the time spent on defense with my clan the attackers were generally down 3, maybe 4 or so players on a 15 v 15 server. That is significant, and bound to happen as people join the server and throw 5 or so lives at an impenetrable defense, an say "screw this, I'm off to battle."


Tl;dr: Basically, conquest is fun but simply can't work with the current server population until it has some serious balance/rewards overhauling. Maybe a system similar to strat where every 3 minutes you are given a set amount of xp and gold based off of your performance, and yours alone, would be the best way to approach the situation. A bonus for flag captures (or recaptures for defense) could also be included to add incentive to attack/defend the objectives.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: San on September 03, 2014, 12:56:49 am
Quote from: Phew on September 02, 2014, 05:59:10 pm
Fips briefly gave NA2 a dedicated rotation of maps that actually suit NA population levels (10-30) several months ago, but that only lasted a couple weeks until the next patch. If he's unwilling/unable to resurrect an NA-friendly map rotation, the only way to save the server would be to make sure the XP/gold are at least on par with Battle. There are a million ways to do that which have been discussed ad nauseam:

-Upkeep should be disabled when <8 players and "teams not fair". Low pop siege is just duel server with upkeep; get rid of the upkeep, and it will populate much faster.
-Fix the bugs on siege maps that have been converted to 1-flag conquest, like defenders being unable to spawn when the flag is contested and defender respawn being time being fixed at 30s
-Revamp multi system for the 30min conquest maps; your multi during Conquest shouldn't depend on the outcome of the previous siege map. Fixed rewards based on team performance at the end of the round (a la DTV) make much more sense on Conquest than the multiplier system.
-Valor is too rare on siege compared to battle; respawns mean everyone is alive and earning points the whole round, so the factor required for valor should be reduced
etc...

I like all of these. I think valour is a roundabout method compared to simply providing a greater reward for winning (and probably killing EU1 lol), but it makes sense to at least make it a little easier to get.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Bryggan on September 03, 2014, 04:57:56 am
Quote from: Jona on September 02, 2014, 07:56:38 pm
While it is now a widely-accepted fact that the balancer sucks in crpg, it seems to "shine" in conquest even more.

I believe I was in that conquest.  2nd time playing conquest (First time caught the very end of a Shariz map- gave up 10 minutes after the timer ended).

The Hounds had populated the server, and many followed.  The first round the Hounds were interspersed between the two teams.  I was on the defender side (with Jona), and after several fierce and exciting back and forth battles, my side ended up losing.  But wow, what a fight!  Next round I was switched to attacker, and the banner balance put all the Hounds defending.  We could not take the first flag.  It was easy to see that the Hounds were on their TS by the way they were catching us all the time.  Plus all the hounds are either very good or quite good.  We had some really good players, but most of us were scrubs.

It was demoralizing, very much so.  Normally I don't give up on siege until I run out of gold (then I go back to battle to make some more (wearing the same gear)), but that time was too frustrating so I quit.  The only thing that would have made it worse is if the Hounds let us take a flag or too on purpose.

So get rid of banner balance (too OP), and the multi.  Neither work on conquest.  Which otherwise is the most awesome thing ever.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 03, 2014, 05:55:44 am
Quote from: Bryggan on September 03, 2014, 04:57:56 am
The Hounds had populated the server, and many followed.  The first round the Hounds were interspersed between the two teams.  I was on the defender side (against Jona), and after several fierce and exciting back and forth battles, my side ended up losing.  But wow, what a fight! 

Agreed, the first round was very close and intense... the attackers won with only a minute or two to spare. For a while it looked like you defenders were gonna hold out on the 2nd to last flag, but then Largos (a traitor to the defenders' cause, apparently) let it be known that they could only get out of their castle by using the main gate (there might be some sort of postern gate in the back, but no one really knows where it leads or how to find it). So after that knowledge was leaked, I ran into your castle and closed the gate on you guys, locking you in while my team capped the flag outside. By the time I was cut down defending the gatehouse from your own team, we capped the outer flag. The best part was that your team didn't yet realize, so they opened the gate, thus letting my team pour in and overrun them, all while trying to run out and save the outer flag from being capped. The confusion was both hilarious and epic at the same time... like a real battle! If only all rounds of conquest could be like that... neck and neck until 2 or so minutes left on the clock. But yeah, then the second round was just a complete slaughter up to the point where it got boring being the meatgrinders... not to brag, but the simple fact is that the teams were ridiculously imbalanced. While I always support banner balance (I am in a clan so I can fight with my friends, not against them), I still think it can exist so long as the score balancer takes some sort of countermeasures to accomodate clan stacks. Custom banner slots should be weighted in some way such that having more players on the same banner on the same team increases that teams' overall value. I don't mind having to fight in a 12 v 16 battle so long as my clan is with me, and it ends up being a fair and fun fight.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: kwhy on September 03, 2014, 06:01:58 am
gib instant valour for killing san, jona, largos, or gallonigher....k thx bye  :mrgreen:

Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Clockworkkiller on September 03, 2014, 12:12:25 pm
Quote from: kwhy on September 03, 2014, 06:01:58 am
gib instant valour for killing san, jona, largos, or gallonigher....k thx bye  :mrgreen:


But all those guys suck.....
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Voncrow on September 03, 2014, 05:55:11 pm
Quote from: Phew on September 02, 2014, 05:59:10 pm
Fips briefly gave NA2 a dedicated rotation of maps that actually suit NA population levels (10-30) several months ago, but that only lasted a couple weeks until the next patch. If he's unwilling/unable to resurrect an NA-friendly map rotation, the only way to save the server would be to make sure the XP/gold are at least on par with Battle. There are a million ways to do that which have been discussed ad nauseam:

-Upkeep should be disabled when <8 players and "teams not fair". Low pop siege is just duel server with upkeep; get rid of the upkeep, and it will populate much faster.
-Fix the bugs on siege maps that have been converted to 1-flag conquest, like defenders being unable to spawn when the flag is contested and defender respawn being time being fixed at 30s
-Revamp multi system for the 30min conquest maps; your multi during Conquest shouldn't depend on the outcome of the previous siege map. Fixed rewards based on team performance at the end of the round (a la DTV) make much more sense on Conquest than the multiplier system.
-Valor is too rare on siege compared to battle; respawns mean everyone is alive and earning points the whole round, so the factor required for valor should be reduced
etc...

It's not just maps that are targeted for a larger pop that are the problem. Like Jona said about that map with the two doors(they actually made it three doors that the enemy can open at will). It's crappy maps like that that kill siege when a good pop is 30. There are a ton of maps like that that should be removed, ones that are just broken. And then there are a lot of maps that are just bad, irrelevant of population, that should be removed. In general, we need someone to go through the maps again, and I think it shouldn't be fips since he's the one who put it there in the first place.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 03, 2014, 06:08:43 pm
Quote from: Voncrow on September 03, 2014, 05:55:11 pm
In general, we need someone to go through the maps again, and I think it shouldn't be fips since he's the one who put it there in the first place.

Yeah, if NA2 was nothing but Native/ATS siege maps (plus maybe H. Monastery), I'd happily play that until the mod died for good. But the rotation now has more broken maps than 3 years ago, which is ridiculous. I appreciate everyone that volunteers on this mod, but objectively speaking NA2 has only declined under Fips' stewardship, so some new blood would be nice.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Fips on September 03, 2014, 06:47:43 pm
I said it plenty of times and i will say it again. Get me someone for the scene management from NA that you think will fit the position, let tydeus, san and canary speak for that person and i'll let him meddle with the NA cycle as much as he wants.

Because concerning EU siege i seem to be doing just fine.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tojo on September 03, 2014, 06:58:27 pm
I nominate myself let me know when I'm scene manager
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 03, 2014, 07:22:06 pm
Quote from: Fips on September 03, 2014, 06:47:43 pm
I said it plenty of times and i will say it again. Get me someone for the scene management from NA that you think will fit the position, let tydeus, san and canary speak for that person and i'll let him meddle with the NA cycle as much as he wants.

Because concerning EU siege i seem to be doing just fine.

This thread (http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/poll-for-na-players-which-maps-do-not-play-well-on-na2/ (http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/poll-for-na-players-which-maps-do-not-play-well-on-na2/)) gathered a lot of good feedback from NA players, and you acted on these suggestions to give NA2 a separate rotation of mostly NA-suitable maps. That lasted less than a month though.

Elindor would have been the man for the job, but he quit cRPG in some part due to being frustrated by his inability to make headway with you on the NA2 rotation (and also because polearms, but that's neither here nor there). I can think of at least a dozen people that would probably do a good job, but is scene editing experience a prerequisite? Because that narrows the pool a lot (I can't think of any active NA2 players that understand scene editing).
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 03, 2014, 07:27:33 pm
Quote from: Fips on September 03, 2014, 06:47:43 pm
I said it plenty of times and i will say it again. Get me someone for the scene management from NA that you think will fit the position, let tydeus, san and canary speak for that person and i'll let him meddle with the NA cycle as much as he wants.

Because concerning EU siege i seem to be doing just fine.
^ That's just the thing though. EU siege and NA siege are two different things, with two different player bases, and two different popularities. You can't think along the lines of what is universally good, same with battle maps, you need to custom tailor them to the actual people that will be playing them.

I would nominate Xeen, but I'm not sure he knows anything about Scene Editing, he just knows what maps play well, and which ones don't, and almost always has a voice about it.

The thing that we need to stop doing as a community is always thinking that what works well for EU will also work well for NA. EU Siege, afaik, is still very popular, so bigger maps, and big changes are made with that in mind, whereas if NA Siege gets over 25 players, people are praising their donkey overlords in the sky for this miracle that will only last 20-30 minutes.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 03, 2014, 07:52:47 pm
Quote from: Tanken on September 03, 2014, 07:27:33 pm
would nominate Xeen, but I'm not sure he knows anything about Scene Editing

Xeen understands what maps work and don't work on NA2, which should be all that's required. I'd like to see a rep from each of KUTT and HoC, because they are the two biggest clans that have been siegebros through thick and thin. BQ (Maduin/Demento's crew of Quebecois) and BoO (formerly HG) are loyal to the cause as well.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Fips on September 03, 2014, 07:57:30 pm
Quote from: Phew on September 03, 2014, 07:22:06 pm
This thread (http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/poll-for-na-players-which-maps-do-not-play-well-on-na2/ (http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/poll-for-na-players-which-maps-do-not-play-well-on-na2/)) gathered a lot of good feedback from NA players, and you acted on these suggestions to give NA2 a separate rotation of mostly NA-suitable maps. That lasted less than a month though.

Elindor would have been the man for the job, but he quit cRPG in some part due to being frustrated by his inability to make headway with you on the NA2 rotation (and also because polearms, but that's neither here nor there). I can think of at least a dozen people that would probably do a good job, but is scene editing experience a prerequisite? Because that narrows the pool a lot (I can't think of any active NA2 players that understand scene editing).

Welp, he told me what maps play bad and i removed those maps. Why would that frustrate him i have no idea. After i did plenty of editing on a whole lot of maps i readded all of them to the NA cycle. Iirc it was after i made plenty of map-comebacks that haven't been in the rotations for a very long time. And i couldn't remember what i did with Elindor back then, so i just went with the universal cycle.

Maybe Scene Manager is the wrong title, Scene Advisor would fit better. He won't get any access to the configs whatsoever, he'll just go through the cycle every once in a while and tell me what's bad for NA siege. As long as he knows what's up in NA2 and gets a +1 from the NA admin community, i'm fine with whoever.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 03, 2014, 07:58:43 pm
Quote from: Phew on September 03, 2014, 07:52:47 pm
Xeen understands what maps work and don't work on NA2, which should be all that's required. I'd like to see a rep from each of KUTT and HoC, because they are the two biggest clans that have been siegebros through thick and thin.

I feel like if this mod was in its final days, and only HoC players were left, that even then we wouldn't be given any sort of authority (assuming Tydeus and Canary would be the ones choosing), no matter how small.  :wink:  Too much clan-ism still exists in this mod.

Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Voncrow on September 03, 2014, 08:03:44 pm
Quote from: Phew on September 03, 2014, 07:52:47 pm
Xeen understands what maps work and don't work on NA2, which should be all that's required. I'd like to see a rep from each of KUTT and HoC, because they are the two biggest clans that have been siegebros through thick and thin. BQ (Maduin/Demento's crew of Quebecois) and BoO (formerly HG) are loyal to the cause as well.

;-;
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Penitent on September 03, 2014, 08:12:26 pm
Quote from: Phew on September 03, 2014, 07:52:47 pm
Xeen understands what maps work and don't work on NA2, which should be all that's required. I'd like to see a rep from each of KUTT and HoC, because they are the two biggest clans that have been siegebros through thick and thin. BQ (Maduin/Demento's crew of Quebecois) and BoO (formerly HG) are loyal to the cause as well.

Never give up, siegebros!

Quote
Maybe Scene Manager is the wrong title, Scene Advisor would fit better. He won't get any access to the configs whatsoever, he'll just go through the cycle every once in a while and tell me what's bad for NA siege. As long as he knows what's up in NA2 and gets a +1 from the NA admin community, i'm fine with whoever.

Maybe we can tweak this process a little.  How about we (The NA players) nominate someone (Like Xeen, or whoever) and give this person to you, Fips.  Then you go the the NA admins to get him approved.  There is a much better chance going up the "chain of command" that way, rather than have us disorganized rabble throwing names at the big bosses.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Fips on September 03, 2014, 11:06:40 pm
I don't care how this person is chosen in the end, as long as someone does so the whole NA drama is over again  :lol:
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: gallonigher on September 03, 2014, 11:07:54 pm
Quote from: Voncrow on September 03, 2014, 08:03:44 pm
;-;
no love for Hess
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 03, 2014, 11:38:52 pm
Quote from: Voncrow on September 03, 2014, 08:03:44 pm
;-;

I didn't intentionally leave you guys off my list; SKoT/Hess/whatever you call yourself now are honorary siegebros as well. I remember years ago when it was BRD and Hosps that dominated NA2 (pre-upkeep era), then MB, then two-ish years ago KUTT and HoC appeared on the scene and have been around ever since.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: kwhy on September 04, 2014, 04:44:37 am
you know what might help out is if under the official list of maps on the forums there was a brief overhead map of the pic as well.  Something along the lines of this...

list of maps on NA2...

(click to show/hide)

does something like this already exist?  If not I could complete this list and post it somewhere on the forum.  Would be nice to have it link to poll or thread about the map/mapmakers under the Scene Editing or even a poll thread per map.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 04, 2014, 07:57:09 am
Wouldn't mind tearing apart the rotation with a few people I know will give good input and passing off our ideas to Fips. KUTT did it a long time ago, even arranged a good rotation and map list, and it got shit all over. But, if we could actually get someone to implement them and allow NA to have its own Unique map rotation and setup, I believe the community of NA would be infinitely happy.

Here you go.. found it. Para said he would be open to adding more recent maps in to this, especially Elindor's 3 maps, and maybe yours too Fips, but we haven't actually gone through and identified which of yours are in the current rotations.

Quote from: Para on November 26, 2012, 04:34:21 am
Keep in mind the rotation I suggested kept all of the maps from the old rotation, minus hrafninn castle (the ultimate server killing map) while adding a few of the old classics. I didn't have much to work with in terms of adding additional maps because even though the physical files were available, there weren't entries in the scenes.txt I had (without an entry the server just goes to random plains). I didn't want to make too much work for the person implementing the rotation so I just added ones that were in the scenes.txt but weren't in the rotation.

My main objective was to get a "fresher" rotation in play without adding maps that weren't balanced or too confusing to a new player. If the rotation I suggested were to gain some popularity, I was hoping that would gain me some more clout with the community and developers to allow me to create an even better, balanced, and interesting rotation.

I haven't had the chance to play on the newly added maps yet. I had the opportunity to spectate other player playing them, and some of them looked incredibly confusing. I'm really not a fan of labyrinthy maps.
Code: [Select]
set_map native_hailes_castle
add_map winewic_castle
add_map native_rudkhan_castle
add_map himmelsberg_monastery
add_map khirin_castle
add_map castle_21_exterior_c
add_map native_brunwud_castle
add_map native_turin_castle
add_map quick_battle_scene_5
add_map castle_34_exterior_c
add_map native_jameyyed_castle
add_map quick_battle_scene_4
add_map quick_battle_7
add_map holmet_castle
add_map greipenfurt_castle
add_map castle_27_exterior_c
add_map sea_raid
add_map rochester_castle
add_map quick_battle_2
add_map citadel
add_map ridoma_castle
add_map Heisenberg
add_map forest_attack
add_map foothold
add_map winter_castle
add_map warkworth_castle
add_map kurosch_city
add_map inch_tuth
add_map castle_16_exterior_c
add_map castle_30_exterior_c
add_map devonshire_keep
The map I removed:
(click to show/hide)

Maps I added:

quick_battle_scene_4:
(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_scene_5
(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_7
(click to show/hide)

kurosch_city
(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_2
(click to show/hide)

native_brunwud_castle
(click to show/hide)

There were a few other maps that I wanted to add but was told they had some kind of exploit on them that was never fixed.

Pics didn't work, but he'll probably re-upload them if need be.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Keshian on September 04, 2014, 08:34:39 am
Get rid of a fucked-up and out-dated xp/gold farming system.  Stop using multipliers and have gold/xp garnered in other ways and many more people would choose siege as an enjoyable way to play the game regardless of the population in the server.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Fips on September 04, 2014, 09:22:34 am
Yeah, we're not gonna use a rotation from 2012 as the basis of this, too much has happened since then.

(click to show/hide)

This is the current cycle.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 04, 2014, 03:04:16 pm
Quote from: Fips on September 04, 2014, 09:22:34 am
Yeah, we're not gonna use a rotation from 2012 as the basis of this, too much has happened since then.

(click to show/hide)

This is the current cycle.

The server-killing maps are all the ones where attackers have to run uphill for a minute+ to get to the flag. It seems like most NA2 players are in agreement about that, so Para/Xeen/whoever has the motivation should just sort through the rotation above and suggest maps to be removed, maybe make a poll thread about it like Elindor did back in the day.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: gallonigher on September 04, 2014, 07:24:15 pm
Quote from: Fips on September 04, 2014, 09:22:34 am
Yeah, we're not gonna use a rotation from 2012 as the basis of this, too much has happened since then.

(click to show/hide)

This is the current cycle.

I would much rather use an outdated rotation from 2012 regardless of how "much" has happened since then.  Correct me if I'm wrong but at least in 2012, NA siege was far more popular than now.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 04, 2014, 07:56:34 pm
Quote from: gallonigher on September 04, 2014, 07:24:15 pm
I would much rather use an outdated rotation from 2012 regardless of how "much" has happened since then.  Correct me if I'm wrong but at least in 2012, NA siege was far more popular than now.

Gallo said it precisely. I'd much rather have 2012 rotation than what is currently in play. Nostalgia is a good thing. And the fact you have Hrafninn Castle still in the rotation kills me Fips.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Voncrow on September 04, 2014, 08:16:42 pm
Also, to prove my earlier point, we had siege running with around 30 people for a while last night. I went to bed early so I don't know exactly how long it lasted, but it was fun. All it took was me asking people in battle if they wanted to join, and when we have a total of 8 and lost our multi, we all switched over. Except it wasn't just 8 who joined, within 5 minutes we had 18 people and more people kept coming, fun times to be had. When it comes to voting for a na rotation manager, I don't know. I don't really see Xeen on much anymore, but that might just be me. Also having some scening knowledge might be helpful if someone who wants to put a map on rotation needs advice on how to fix it if it's bad. Then again even someone without the experience can probably do that. My vote would probably go for Phew out of lack for a better candidate.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 04, 2014, 08:26:42 pm
Quote from: gallonigher on September 04, 2014, 07:24:15 pm
I would much rather use an outdated rotation from 2012 regardless of how "much" has happened since then.  Correct me if I'm wrong but at least in 2012, NA siege was far more popular than now.

Gallo hit the nail on the head. To us NA siegebros, all that "much" that has happened to NA2 since 2012 has been for the worse.

Quote from: Voncrow on September 04, 2014, 08:16:42 pm
My vote would probably go for Phew out of lack for a better candidate.

I can barely meet my current obligations to wife/kids/employer, I'm not about to add work for some nerds on the interwebs.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Fips on September 04, 2014, 09:00:35 pm
Quote from: Tanken on September 04, 2014, 07:56:34 pm
Gallo said it precisely. I'd much rather have 2012 rotation than what is currently in play. Nostalgia is a good thing. And the fact you have Hrafninn Castle still in the rotation kills me Fips.

That wasn't my point. Many of the maps you mentioned got a whole lot of edits, some with tremendous balance differences on EU side. I want the current maps reviewed and then someone, whoever person(s) that might be, tell me to remove this and that map for reason 1, 2 and 3. I'm not asking much here.
So stop talking about whatever issues here in this thread, get some people together, work the whole thing out and give me a list.
The many times this issue got discussed already usually ended up with a whole lot of blabla and way too less workwork. The only one who ever did anything serious about it was Elindor.

That is all.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Penitent on September 04, 2014, 09:18:17 pm
Quote from: Fips on September 04, 2014, 09:00:35 pm
That wasn't my point. Many of the maps you mentioned got a whole lot of edits, some with tremendous balance differences on EU side. I want the current maps reviewed and then someone, whoever person(s) that might be, tell me to remove this and that map for reason 1, 2 and 3. I'm not asking much here.
So stop talking about whatever issues here in this thread, get some people together, work the whole thing out and give me a list.
The many times this issue got discussed already usually ended up with a whole lot of blabla and way too less workwork. The only one who ever did anything serious about it was Elindor.

That is all.

A call to action.  A request for motion.

Where do we find such an action-man?  Who here among us is disguised as a hero of initiative, to take on this honorable task?

Let him step forward, state his name, and then begin the righteous work of striking maps off of the NA Siege rotation.

(seriously, if anyone here even knows a couple of the maps that should be removed, and why, just nominate them in this thread and we can get the ball rolling.  We have Fips' ear here, might as well not squander it.)
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 04, 2014, 09:29:33 pm
Quote from: Fips on September 04, 2014, 09:00:35 pm
That wasn't my point. Many of the maps you mentioned got a whole lot of edits, some with tremendous balance differences on EU side. I want the current maps reviewed and then someone, whoever person(s) that might be, tell me to remove this and that map for reason 1, 2 and 3. I'm not asking much here.
So stop talking about whatever issues here in this thread, get some people together, work the whole thing out and give me a list.
The many times this issue got discussed already usually ended up with a whole lot of blabla and way too less workwork. The only one who ever did anything serious about it was Elindor.

That is all.

I didn't mean to offend you. Though you can shove Hrafninn Castle----

I will bring it to the KUTT guys the current map rotation, and see if we can't hammer out what maps need to go or what ones need to come in. And before we submit it to you, I'll put up a thread about it or something and allow other NA clans and Siege players to weigh in on it before we pass it on to you for final analysis.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Fips on September 04, 2014, 10:00:52 pm
I wasn't offended by you, i'm just sick and tired of discussing the same issue over and over again. An issue that has proven to be just "talk" - QQ mostly, really - ever since it started. (Except Elindor, ofc)
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 04, 2014, 11:50:46 pm
Quote from: Penitent on September 04, 2014, 09:18:17 pm
A call to action.  A request for motion.

Where do we find such an action-man?  Who here among us is disguised as a hero of initiative, to take on this honorable task?

Let him step forward, state his name, and then begin the righteous work of striking maps off of the NA Siege rotation.

(seriously, if anyone here even knows a couple of the maps that should be removed, and why, just nominate them in this thread and we can get the ball rolling.  We have Fips' ear here, might as well not squander it.)

This would be an easy task if

Quote from: kwhy on September 04, 2014, 04:44:37 am
you know what might help out is if under the official list of maps on the forums there was a brief overhead map of the pic as well.  Something along the lines of this...

list of maps on NA2...

(click to show/hide)

does something like this already exist?  If not I could complete this list and post it somewhere on the forum.  Would be nice to have it link to poll or thread about the map/mapmakers under the Scene Editing or even a poll thread per map.


existed for the current rotation.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: kwhy on September 05, 2014, 12:36:20 am
** editing the new and old map rotation.  will merge them into correct list **

fooook!  I didn't catch that wasn't the current rotation until I got finished copying pics from the editor.  I was like, man most of these maps aren't too bad....

well here are/were the 2012 Siege NA2 siege lineup album pics  (http://imgur.com/a/E4Gd9)

(click to show/hide)

I'm trying to learn the editor so lemme see if I can tackle the real list like this...

edit: spelingz
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tojo on September 05, 2014, 03:04:28 am
Quote from: Tanken on September 04, 2014, 09:29:33 pm
I didn't mean to offend you. Though you can shove Hrafninn Castle----

I will bring it to the KUTT guys the current map rotation, and see if we can't hammer out what maps need to go or what ones need to come in. And before we submit it to you, I'll put up a thread about it or something and allow other NA clans and Siege players to weigh in on it before we pass it on to you for final analysis.

It may take some work but if you could list maps in a voting system, with linked screenshot?... please
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: kwhy on September 05, 2014, 03:28:37 am
here is the current NA2 server list with brief overhead map view.

08/04/14 - cRGP NA2 Siege Map Lineup view album (http://imgur.com/a/vomou) (images too hard to sort sorry)

(click to show/hide)

older out of rotation maps

(click to show/hide)

If you guys want to use this in a poll thread or if you want me to make a poll thread I could do that as well.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 05, 2014, 05:53:05 am
Quote from: kwhy on September 05, 2014, 03:28:37 am
here is the current NA2 server list with brief overhead map view.

08/04/14 - cRGP NA2 Siege Map Lineup view album (http://imgur.com/a/vomou) (images too hard to sort sorry)

(click to show/hide)

older out of rotation maps

(click to show/hide)

If you guys want to use this in a poll thread or if you want me to make a poll thread I could do that as well.

Thank you a LOT for the current rotation. I'm going to reference maps to remove and add, so if you need photo reference for removals, please view the quote. I am going to weigh in right quick with just some quick suggestions, I'm completely open to feedback.


For NA I would REMOVE:

the_lighthouse -- It's a pretty map, but it usually just results in 1 attack direction. It becomes dull because attackers need to walk for nearly a minute to make it to the flag. It is also very buggy (Tretter told me to add this)

hrafninn_castle -- Absolutely shittiest map in rotation. Walk forever, climb ladders, stairs, etc. for a long time, and defenders have an extremely fortified position. Remove it, and never bring it back.

ishtar -- Plays too boringly. Also, attacker spawn being far away at beginning is annoying. Not a fan of its linear playstyle.

vocht_castle -- There is no real reason to go through the water tunnel, nor does it realistically make sense. There is only 1 real viable attack direction, and it's pretty boring.

burg_rabenstein -- Plays like shit. It is extremely straight forward and more of a grind-fest than anything. There is no real tactics that can be deployed on this other than defend the gatehouse, and once that's lost, it's a matter of defend the flag gate. Pretty dull overall.

tzar_castle -- I have never been an overwhelming fan of this map simply because the layout seems very odd. It doesn't really encourage any good group fighting either.

viking_village_siege -- Terrible map all the way around. Break the gate, or go through a house. Both are extremely mundane. Attackers also spawn way too far from the objective. It's at least a 90 second walk to flag, if not more.

bragelon_castle -- I don't like this map AT ALL. The whole underground thing is dumb. If you're a defender, you spawn behind the castle sometime. Half the time defenders have no clue what they're doing or where to go, and ultimately your ONLY viable defense is to just hold the tiny ass flag room.

irongron_castle -- A map where offense has it almost too easily. Offense can get to flag virtually unharassed by following the farthest left ladder, along the left wall, over the roof top, and down on to the platform where flag used to be. Does not play well, especially in small numbers (which is what we do)

cazawa_keep -- While the tactics on this map are fun, and the overall options to win on offense are good, there is some serious issues with the slow-ass-movement that happens when you're on certain levels approaching the flag. For instance, when you reach the 2nd tier, after taking the ladders from the "leaf roof hut" to the next level, that floor there is super slow.wouldn't remove this if it could be fixed.

fort_rhuin -- Just a poorly designed, far-fetched map that does not translate well for NA. The uphill battle, the long foot-race to find out where to go, and the utter clusterfuck indoors just makes for a bad map overall. There is no saving it, only removing it.

sorrows_anchorage -- This map HAS NEVER PLAYED WELL. When this map comes on, especially if KUTT is on Defense, we voluntarily let the other team capture the flag to finish it. There is a fucked up Offense spawn that puts you in a stupid place on top of a building. The long ladder sounds good in theory but is definitely a dumb thing. The trek uphill once you cross the ladder or bridge is ball-breaking, and the defense spawns are generally too good. Remove absolutely.

wallenberg -- Extremely mundane and dull for a Conquest map. 3 in a row, 3 in a row, 2 in a row, final flag. If I remember right? It's extremely easy for attackers. There's no real defense areas for defenders around any of the points except the last one, and by that point attackers still have 30+ minutes on the clock to take it, so, good luck.

I would also remove any Conquest map that is not Shariz or Port_of_Shariz.



I would ADD

Native_Turin_Castle -- Some may not agree with me, and that's okay, but the multiple ways to attack this base were a LOT of fun.
(click to show/hide)

castle_27_exterior_c -- Very fun map. Very grindy and straight forward, but had enough of an OH SHIT CLOSE/OPEN THE GATE factor that made for some VERY exciting battles on and off the flag.
(click to show/hide)

rochester_castle -- Why was this ever removed? (if it was removed?) It played well. Only thing I'd fix would be closer spawns for offense POSSIBLY.
(click to show/hide)

foothold -- Great map. Cav had a purpose, infantry felt good, and there was a lot of tactics to be deployed here. Would strongly recommend it added, possibly with closer offense spawns.
(click to show/hide)

forest_attack -- Very fun, made for some fast moving action. There was a lot to do on this map, and there was ALWAYS great fights at the top of the ladder, so the initial push was crucial.
(click to show/hide)
EDIT: Apparently these last 3, are still in the rotation. Realized that after re-reading. Consider Para's maps.


I am not sure if I listed maps to add that were already in there or not. I would also consider Para's maps, but it's been so long I can't recall any personal opinions on them. I also wrote this while fairly intoxicated, so I apologize for any misspellings or if I seemed incoherent or messy.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 05, 2014, 06:20:20 am
Quote from: kwhy on September 05, 2014, 03:28:37 am
here is the current NA2 server list with brief overhead map view.

08/04/14 - cRGP NA2 Siege Map Lineup view album (http://imgur.com/a/vomou) (images too hard to sort sorry)

Wow, great work man. Thanks a lot for posting this.

I have a feeling that this will take me quite a long while to review, since I like to elaborate as much as I can when I post, so I only ask that you actually try and take the time to consider what I (just one little NA siege player) have to say. If you do read it carefully and take my thoughts into consideration, then thank you in advance.

Anyways, without further ado, here are my thoughts on the maps in the current rotation. For any maps that I think are okay, I do not elaborate much, since there is little reason to. When speaking about the left/right/front/back of a castle, I try and speak relative to attackers spawn. So the front would be the side facing their spawn.


hrafninn_castle
(click to show/hide)

This is the classic siege-killer map. The problem here is it is too vertical, which gives defense a great advantage. Not only does it take the attackers a long time to climb to the very top, but it also has many great places for defending ranged to pick them off from while they make the long climb up. To top it all off, the flag area itself is very small, and easily defendable since there are few ways in. The only times attackers have ever won this map were due to a stacked attacking side or very lazy defending where a ninja won the day.

I like the map a lot... the detailing is nice and all, but it just isn't fun to play for either side, really. And more importantly, it more often than not kills siege. It is one of those maps that a team which is losing 2-0 will often throw the last round just so they get off the map sooner.

native_rudkhan_castle
(click to show/hide)

Good map.

devonshire_keep
(click to show/hide)

Great map, easily one of my favorites.

winter_castle
(click to show/hide)

Good classic siege map.

warkworth_castle
(click to show/hide)

A pretty good map that is only unplayable as of now due to the pseudo-conquest mode where attackers must select a spawn and defenders have long timers and the inability to spawn while the flag is contested. If this map would be reverted to regular siege, it would be fine.

native_mahdaar_castle
(click to show/hide)

Haven't seen this one in the rotation in a while. It has always been a so-so map, mainly because there is simply no real use to the 2nd gate/gatehouse. With the flag centered like it is, there is no difference coming at it from the back or the front since you can only attack from the left or right side. My biggest complaint is that with only 2 sides to attack from any team that camps the flag is sure to win. Maybe the addition of a ladder coming up directly from the ground to the flag from behind would give the 2nd gate and set of doors some purpose, as well as give another entrypoint to the flag (which due to being located so much further away than the other two entry points probably wouldn't see much use anyways... but at least it would be an option).

himmelsberg_monastery
(click to show/hide)

Another good Elindor-made map.

castle_16_exterior_c
(click to show/hide)

Classic Almerra. Great map.

castle_34_exterior_c
(click to show/hide)

Good map.

inch_tuth
(click to show/hide)

This one is pretty good. Kinda rough on the defenders due to the smaller size of it and the fact that attackers can come from 3 directions. This map mostly devolves into a skirmish around the flag for  much of the round, which is okay by me (so long as every single map isn't like that... it provides a nice change of pace).

native_jameyyed_castle
(click to show/hide)

The go-to "let's change the map to something that is balanced" map whenever an admin comes along to fix the rotation. Pretty good map.

Heisenberg
(click to show/hide)

Good map.

holmet_castle
(click to show/hide)

Pretty good.

greipenfurt_castle
(click to show/hide)

Good.

ridoma_castle
(click to show/hide)

Another great one, a favorite of mine since it plays differently than most.

sea_raid
(click to show/hide)

Great map. Always play this map from beginning to end regardless of my multi and if I have to leave or not.

citadel
(click to show/hide)

Good map, but was much better before the addition of the "gauntlet run" hallways that replaced the door to the flag. A door was something that attackers could actually get through, while running the gauntlet is suicide. This changes up the map so the back two entryways are used much more often, which throws off the balance a little since the attackers' only real option is to go the long way, every time. Would much rather see the old version of this map back in the rotation.

foothold
(click to show/hide)

Good map.

rochester_castle
(click to show/hide)

A so-so map. Kind of hard for attackers since the defense usually just camps the flag area the whole time. The only real chance the attackers have is to flank around the back and win the flag in the first push while most of the defenders are fighting on the front wall for their first life. The defending team basically has all the perks of camping the walls, but at the flag. Combine that with several defending spawns that are really close to the flag, and well, it isn't the best map be on t he attacking side. I like this map, how it is laid out and everything, but frankly it just doesn't  play well. I wouldn't mind seeing it revamped somehow so it is more fair to the attackers, but there wouldn't be too many easy ways to do that since the flag's location gives defense such an advantage.

jammadi_castle
(click to show/hide)

Another polarizing, so-so map. Some like it, others hate it. It is pretty fun since there aren't really many important ladders or stairs that must be climbed.  For that reason I like it, but I know many others hate it, and don't get me wrong, me "liking" it is by no means the same thing as me thinking it's a great and fun map. The main issues with this one that I see are that it takes attackers quite a while to get to the flag. A whole lot of zigging and zagging is necessary to navigate the streets successfully. And once you finally get to the flag area, it is surrounded by a moat, and there is only one entrance to the flag itself. No one likes fighting in water, and it usually aides the defensive side more than the attacking since it not only slows the attackers down, but because they are slowed down ranged/long weapons have a much easier time picking them off. If there were more direct paths to the flag so that this map didn't feel like such a maze, and if the water was removed, then this might play out alright. Maybe the water could stay, but if so I would like to see the flag wall removed instead. That way the water could provide a natural barrier that any defenders within the circle could use to their advantage. It would also allow the circular nature of the whole central area to have more of an impact on gameplay, by allowing attackers to come from any direction.

castle_30_exterior_c
(click to show/hide)

Pretty good map. Not the best, far from the worst.

native_hailes_castle
(click to show/hide)

A nice small map. Good change of pace from some of the larger ones (see jammadi above).

native_brunwud_castle
(click to show/hide)

I haven't seen this map in quite a while and frankly I thought it was removed from the rotation. From what I remember it was a decent map plagued by the annoying attacker spawn-swapping halfway through the round. Attackers would almost all spawn in the front (where the siege tower is) at the beginning of the round, and then about halfway through most of their spawns switch to the left side (bottom left side in the picture provided) where the big wooden gate is. This was always a major nuisance since the tower is so far away now, and if the big gate hasn't been opened yet then the only option was the ladder on the far left. In addition to taking a different entryway into the castle, you now have a harder time getting to certain entryways into the main keep. Oftentimes I would see a team push onto the walls with the siege tower, then immediately turn right and try to enter the keep from the back right-hand side. Now assuming that they didn't take the flag right away, when all the team starts spawning near the bottom left, the side which favors them taking the back left-hand side approach, any progress made on the back right side would be for nothing, and attackers are basically back to square one halfway through the round. There are a couple other maps that do this spawn switch-up thing (like hrafninn castle) but it isn't AS bad in those maps as it is in this one. Regardless, hrafninn is a poor map for other reasons, while the only real downside to this map is the spawn swapping.

Also, as I said I haven't played this map in a while, and from this image it seems there is another gate now in front of the flag. This is a big no-no in my opinion since the head-on approach on this map almost never worked since the gate took a while to break and as I said before a favored approach would be to flank around either side since there is only one door around back as opposed to now TWO in front. Also, the doors around back have always broken far quicker than the front door... now with two front doors that approach seems almost useless.

quick_battle_scene_4
(click to show/hide)

Another great small map.

ishtar
(click to show/hide)

A so-so map. Kind of a long walk for attackers, but at least they have a few cool ninja routes to take. It is kind of hard on the attackers since the defenders can very easily just hold the inner walls without caring about the outside much at all, other than the close the main gate from time to time to slow the attackers up a little. Also, the entry you take into the castle is very dependent upon where you spawn, as it is a far walk form the far left to the far right ladders. There is no real reason the terrain has to be so sloped outside the castle, as it only limits the attackers' options when they want to choose which side to attack. In my opinion the attackers entry points should all be relatively equal in walking time (at least for the front side). This allows the player to choose which side they want to pick for strategic reasons, not simply because it is the shortest route sicne they spawned way on the left/right.

kurosch_city
(click to show/hide)

Ugh. This map. Nothing against the map, but it just isn't fun to play. I like the concept and the detail in it, but having an underground siege map just doesn't play too well. When defenders spawn outside, they often neglect the fact that their flag is way down below and just charge at the attackers. However, if all the defenders spawned underground all the time, well, the map would be highly in their favor. Also, this map feels like a long walk for attackers, only to be forced to fight on stairs. While this time around the attackers hold the high ground in the assault, stairs still slow them up and it simply isn't fun fighting on stairs. In this map much of the fighting (other than the first spawn yolo-charge of many defenders) is done on the stairs.

vocht_castle
(click to show/hide)

A decent, yet very unrealistic and weird concept that surprisingly works out okay. It isn't my favorite map, but I have no real issues with it.

windfall_castle
(click to show/hide)

This map has always been fun, yet defending it was always a little more tricky than attacking. It seems as though the outer wall is now intact and there is a new gate through which the attackers must pass in order to get into the castle. I liked the map a lot how it used to be, and i think that this new wall destroys much of what made the older version so unique. It felt like a battlefield (and often was) before you even got to the walls. I liked that. This map encouraged defenders to sally out since attackers had a lot of flat ground to cover. The randomly placed spikes and siege shields gave the map an almost D-day feeling as you run from cover to cover dodging any defending ranged. With the new outer wall I can't help but feel like it is now like many other castles, only it has a larger courtyard that you really don't even need to pass through since it would be just as fast walking along the walls. If this map could be reverted to the older version, and the only change being that defenders had slightly closer spawns, then I think this map would be good. Otherwise, I can't really say since I've yet to play it with this new intact outer wall.

windhill_castle
(click to show/hide)

A pretty good map that tends to favor defenders since they get to hold the high ground with only two entry points at the flag (the stairs or the narrow bridge). I see that there is now a 3rd entry point, a ladder on the left side, which seems like a good idea and may very well turn this into a great map. I've yet to try it with this new ladder, though.

windsore_castle
(click to show/hide)

Pretty fun map. No real complaints (other than the fact that the siege tower is nearly useless... but that doesn't seem to affect balance much).

rhodok_cliffside_castle
(click to show/hide)

Pretty alright map. Not outstanding, not terrible.

the_lighthouse
(click to show/hide)

Good map. My only recommendations would be to fix the wall-jumping glitch that allows attackers to climb to the upper wall on the right side (and thus jump right into the flag area) and make the flag gate a little easier to break. It currently takes way too long to knock down, and with defenders poking through the gate, it is quite difficult to breach.

burg_rabenstein
(click to show/hide)

This map is another siege killer. It isn't particularly inbalanced, although defenders usually seem to have an easier time, but it simply isn't that fun. It is a stale map that doesn't have anything all that unique about it. It seems most castles with an outer wall and then an inner keep are on the  lower end of the fun spectrum. Also, it has another one of those poke-through gates, which always give defenders a huge advantage if they wish to hold the flag. If these type of gates were on the outer walls (like in jammadi castle) then it wouldn't be as much of an issue. If the whole defending team is sitting behind that type of gate, poking through at all the attackers trying to break it, then they will easily get ninja-capped that round. But with this type of gate at the flag, they can easily camp it AND the flag at the same time, leading to them having a huge advantage. Gates and the flag are the two key areas that defenders should defend... I was never particularly a fan of having them both so close to each other. Defenders should have to choose one or the other.

palace_of_marte
(click to show/hide)

Fun map. Somewhat hard on the defenders since it is on the smaller side and the attackers don't spawn much farther away than some of the defender spawns. Maybe there should be a small and weak postern gate door on the bottom left where attackers can just walk right in to  hold them up. I have yet to really determine if this map is terribly inbalanced against the defenders, or they just always seem to lose due to a lack of cohesion. Most often the attacking side is a clan stack or just has the better players, while I have the opposite prove true and the defenders can indeed win if that is the case... would take some more play-testing for me to be certain, but as it is I would say it slightly favors offense.

dun_bhirum
(click to show/hide)

Pretty good map. I was never a huge fan of the elevated flag area, but I know some are, and well, it is something unique and different, so why not? The archer tower right next to the flag is a nuisance, but it doesn't completely throw the balance of the map.

tzar_castle
(click to show/hide)

Yuck. This map might rank among the top 3 siege killers. It feels way too much like a maze, the attackers' flanking options are way too complex and require some sort of ninja skills to avoid taking fall damage or outright dying from falling, and last but not least it is made with what is perhaps the worst stone texture color. The dark gray color makes it quite difficult to tell the walls from the ground, from the parapets, from the towers, etc, since shading is a lot harder to perceive. It really throws off your depth perception since  you are mostly focusing on something else (like your opponent's weapon). Speaking of which, seeing your opponents weapon is hard enough on this map since the stone walls are essentially the same color as weapons like the longsword/danish/short broad sword. This map is very dark, and makes it feel like it is always nighttime. Combine this map with actual nighttime, and everyone better bring a torch, else it's gonna be a pretty shitty few rounds.

viking_village_siege
(click to show/hide)

I think I played this once in siege, and though it was a joke. This map should stay on the battle servers (where I don't think it is even used anymore), and stay out of siege. The flag wasn't even placed in a building, it was just sitting in the corner of the village. Very strange set up and not really the best for siege. I haven't seen this map in some time, and like I said only saw it that once, and I am glad I never encountered it again. If it is indeed still in the rotation, please take it out. The conversion from battle map to siege map seems hastily and poorly done.

bridge_of_eldia
(click to show/hide)

Not a favorite of mine, but I don't particularly have any specific complaints about it either. It is something different, so I see no problem leaving it in for the sake of adding a  bit of variety.

bragelon_castle
(click to show/hide)

...what? What even is this map? Never seen it in any server, and I don't think I even want to. Looks very much like burg rabenstein: sandstone edition. Doesn't look like fun, and I don't even see how it plays out (unless you go from ground level, to wall level, to inner wall level, then to somewhere in the keep? No idea whatsoever). I can't say with absolute certainty that this map is terrible, since I haven't played it. But judging the book by its cover, I will say it looks rather boring.

irongron_castle
(click to show/hide)

This map is pretty large, confusing to navigate, and well, pretty boring as well. I like that the flag is in a large courtyard, but getting to it is a hassle. I only know of one way in, yet there are countless hallways and walls that I pass by that have to lead somewhere. I've never played this map on a larger server population, so maybe all those potential ninja routes would prove useful. Each time I've played this one (only 2-3 times) the population has been below 10 per side.

al_khal
(click to show/hide)

Is this map fixed yet? I think the last time I was on this one the underwater glitch was finally removed. However, that didn't solve the defenders spawning on a high balcony problem. Nevertheless, even with the forever-below-sea-level-induced-water-colored-fog removed, this map still played out horribly. Main reason: stairs. All the attackers could do was climb, climb, climb, only to die somewhere along the way or once they got to the top. Defense once again holds the high ground, and that just never makes for a fun map. I would say strike this one off the list.

bertreford_keep
(click to show/hide)

A decent map. I am still puzzled by the removal of the ladder on the left side. Too many entry points for attackers, I guess? Anyways, haven't really played this one enough to get a good grasp of how it plays out, but each time I did the flag was almost always contested at the very end, which I suppose means it is pretty balanced? Also, I still don't see the point of that gate above the water on the left side...

cazawa_keep
(click to show/hide)

Despite being a vertical map, this one wasn't ever TOO bad. It struck an odd balance between too much change in elevation and a lot of flat ground. Attackers aren't constantly climbing ever so slowly up some inclined surface or another. Instead, they go up a short ladder, and then are on flat ground where they can move around and fight as they wish. Also, this map had plenty of ways up, so the attackers aren't stuck going through the same chokepoint again and again. However, ever since a recent patch a vital staircase was removed (or glitched) on the back right side. I can't see if it is still missing in that screenshot or not, but I pointed it out in a forum post here: http://forum.melee.org/scene-editing/cazawa-keep-ruined-in-patch/

I never got any sort of answer as to whether or not the removal of that staircase was intentional, but as someone points out one of those screenshots, there is a "dead end" which was never there before since it used to be a staircase.

chateau_de_chillon
(click to show/hide)

Only played this map once, I think. No immediate concerns jumped out at me, but I would rather play test it more before I pass judgement on it. For now I will list it as so-so and not necessarily in need of removal.

EDIT: According to Digglez this map is messy and poorly laid out, which I can agree with after my brief time playing it. I would have said that as well, but then again nearly any map can seem like a maze on your first time playing. Also, there aren't many places to fight other than tiny cramped hallways and such which very quickly turn into nothing more than a big meatgrinder, and that is never much fun for either side involved.

forest_attack
(click to show/hide)

Glad to see that this one returned to the rotation, was always a fun one. The addition of the new ladder is an interesting idea, but it now makes the back left flank (where you need to cut down a doorway, then go up stairs, only to break through more doorways) completely neglected. The new ladder gets you to same place, but you have to hack through 2 or 3 less doors. I think that way might be a little too quick as of now, haven't played this one enough since the change to really see just how much it affects the map balance other than the aforementioned neglection of the back right flank.

fort_rhuin
(click to show/hide)

Bad map. Too large, too confusing, too... odd.

khirin_castle
(click to show/hide)

Good map.

sorrows_anchorage
(click to show/hide)

A newer map, but one that isn't all that bad. It is very much a departure form the norm, and I like it, personally. Maybe some don't since there isn't much of a castle, and it is 'siege' after all. I don't mind it, and would definitely like to see it left in the rotation to maintain some variety.

EDIT: Apparently some attacker spawns should be tweaked. Minds well remove the defenders' spawn(s) inside the castle as well.

warhill_castle
(click to show/hide)

A very, very small map. Not sure if it is maybe TOO small for siege. I feel as though the attackers can get inside a little too quickly, especially if they knock down the postern gates on the right side. Haven't played it too much yet, and so far have only been defending.

white_burg_castle
(click to show/hide)

Way too large of a map for modern day siege. Reminds me of the maps from 3 years ago. I know that attackers used to spawn outside the far walls, not sure if their spawns are all inside now. Nevertheless this map isn't all that fun (stairs!) and is still very, very big.

winewic_castle
(click to show/hide)

A good map now that I think all the gates open from the inside once more. When they were bugged the map sucked, as to be expected.

bay_of_shariz
(click to show/hide)

In terms of conquest maps, this was our first taste of conquest and well, it is a pretty decent map. Whether or not conquest really works in the siege server (until there can be a better reward system in place) remains to be seen. I think it could work out if a larger population can be maintained. Unil then, I am not so sure that this map, or any conquest map, should be in the rotation.

isle_of_cray
(click to show/hide)

Another good conquest map. See above for reasons against conquest in general.

shariz
(click to show/hide)

Last I played this map was broken such that it never ended... so if that is still the case, remove it ASAP. Even if that isn't the case I would still vote for its removal. It is so large, so cluttered, and so disorderly that it is almost always impossible to tell which way you are headed. "Enemy is taking the west walls!" "That's great, which way is west?!?!"

Unlike the isle of cray or the bay of shariz, this map is an utter mess. Just looking at the other two conquest maps you can tell there is a natural progression through them. This one has no such thing.

helms_deep
(click to show/hide)

Keep your middle earth outa my calradia. This map has undergone 100 renovations just to make it work in siege, and I don't think a single version of this map has as of yet. Just please remove this map already as there are far better options out there. This map has all the worst aspects of every other siege map combined... it is very vertical, there are steep slopes/stairs all over, with many narrow chokepoints/ladders everywhere else.

hrafninn_conquest
(click to show/hide)

Hrafninn 2.0? Please no. This map wasn't AS bad as it was in siege (probably due to really long defending timers), but once the newly-added flag was taken, it was simply good ole hrafninn all over again (that was sarcasm there, in case you missed it... there is nothing good about this map).

anor_stronghold
(click to show/hide)

If this is the map I think it is, then I don't think it is still in the rotation. But assuming it is... well, why is it? It has the most annoying gate opening method ever (only way up to the gatehouse and back down is the siege tower). Any defenders who spawn in teh gatehouse are pretty much stuck there until the attackers get the siege tower there, if they even choose to use the siege tower. Also, the ceiling is so low in the gathouse, weapons get caught on it on the overheads and most importantly the camera is all messed up. Not only that, but once inside many attackers run all over the place and then after a good 15 seconds of achieving nothing there is the collective "wait, WHERE'S the flag?!?"

wallenberg
(click to show/hide)

What the..? Never seen this map, and don't want to. It seems way too large, unless it is a conquest map, maybe? But even so... it just seems so dreadfully boring to play (see bragelon castle description for more info).

al_qobab
(click to show/hide)

Conquest, I assume? Even so, looks pretty stale... Idk, MIGHT be fun for conquest, would have to play it to see. Definitely seems too large for siege.

fallen_abbey
(click to show/hide)

Same as above map, only this one might be a little more confusing and maze-y.


I figured since kwhy/ted/miss went through the trouble of digging up these few older ones that I minds well do a brief review of them... maybe some can be brought back?

native_turin_castle
(click to show/hide)

This map was always alright, never saw a reason for its removal.

castle_21_exterior_c
(click to show/hide)

See above. This one was always something unique, and I kinda miss it.

castle_27_exterior_c
(click to show/hide)

This one was both fun and not fun... it depends on how stacked one side is. Personally I never minded it, but I can see why some might be glad it is gone. I'm impartial, but I wouldn't necessarily mind seeing it return.


Wow, that took even longer than expected... somewhere between 45mins-1 hr (hopefully it takes significantly less time to read!). Good thing I had nothing else to do tonight (other than play crpg of course).  :mrgreen:

Anyways, as I said before, I spent some time on this, so I would appreciate it if this was taken into consideration when planning out a new NA siege rotation. If others have any thoughts to add I can always edit this post to turn it into one mega post consisting of all our collective thoughts.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: San on September 05, 2014, 06:22:15 am
+1 just for the effort in that post. Good Lord.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 05, 2014, 06:24:53 am
Quote from: San on September 05, 2014, 06:22:15 am
+1 just for the effort in that post. Good Lord.

Anything for the betterment of NA siege!  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 05, 2014, 07:03:19 am
Good opinions on everything Jona. Very thorough, and I agree with you on most, except Sorrows Anchorage. There are some major issues on playability that simply can't be brushed aside. For instance, from attackers perspective, the tower spawn. The ladder is immeasurably dumb, and with nudging there is a lot of trolling that happens. Visually it's not even appealing.

You did bring up a good point too. It doesn't feel like a Siege, it feels like some shitty raid of Hogwarts' courtyard or something. I really don't understand its design at all.

Other than that, I think you were pretty spot on. Also, your first suggestion addition--I forgot about that gem. That is a good map.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 05, 2014, 07:49:31 am
Quote from: Tanken on September 05, 2014, 07:03:19 am
There are some major issues on playability that simply can't be brushed aside. For instance, from attackers perspective, the tower spawn. The ladder is immeasurably dumb, and with nudging there is a lot of trolling that happens. Visually it's not even appealing.

You did bring up a good point too. It doesn't feel like a Siege, it feels like some shitty raid of Hogwarts' courtyard or something. I really don't understand its design at all.

Hmm... I've played attacker only a few times on that map and never did I spawn in a tower. The only awkward spawn that I've had on that map is inside the castle for defenders. Even that one isn't TOO bad since you do exit the castle relatively close to the flag... there is just the few seconds of "Wtf, here the heck am I?!?!" It is also kind of annoying since there is pretty much no chance whatsoever that you will encounter any enemies for a good 20-30 seconds of walking, which is kind of a long while since defenders should be able to get back into the fray pretty quickly after they spawn in.

The ladder is an eyesore, agreed, but I would prefer playability over prettiness any day of the week. And well, a ladder simply works there. If it was a normal ramp or something then players could run across it super fast and they would be at the flag in seconds. Since everyone is so exposed moving really slowly over a huge fall, it adds a certain risk to taking that path. It is easy for defenders to nudge the incoming attackers off, or just pepper them with ranged from afar. It is a neat aspect that is unique to that map, and it is something that siege needs, uniqueness. We don't want to toss out any 'different' map such that we only end up with the same old "up and over the walls, then through the gate to the flag and you're done" type of maps. If the attackers spawns need tweaking, then by all means let's fix them, but leave this map in the rotation. That's my vote, anyways. Take it for whatever it's worth. Besides, there needs to be a new weakest link, right?  :wink:  Not all maps in a rotation are going to ever be perfect, until we are playing on only one map.  :lol:

Quote from: Tanken on September 05, 2014, 07:03:19 am
Also, your first suggestion addition--I forgot about that gem. That is a good map.

Turin Castle? You had that one on your list as well... Kwhy/ted/miss had it under ones that were removed recently.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Digglez on September 05, 2014, 09:15:11 am
Skimmed most of Jona's and agree nearly 100%.

chateau_de_chillon.  Never really saw a good flow when I played a version of this map.  It was always very confusing and poorly laid out.  The areas to fight were tiny, claustrophobic little alleys and too much vertical space.

However to rebut Taken, rochester_castle is terrible and nearly ALWAYS kills siege population.  Boring all around with little creativity other than take a whole minute to get to stairs than walk up into the meat grinder.

Any revision of siege should really take into account the ideal or realistic population rebuilding, so heir it on the side of smaller maps to help encourage people to play on siege again.  Once population is healthy again, slowly introduce some of the medium & larger maps
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Fips on September 05, 2014, 12:45:04 pm
Holy shit, you guys actually accomplished something =D
I'll go through your posts and get rid of some maps then, in the meantime keep it coming, the more feedback (Especially on the bad maps, if the map is fine just leave it uncommented)

One thing though, there will be no edits to the maps themselves, it's either out or in for them.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 05, 2014, 02:54:06 pm
I agree with most everything Tanken and Jona have said, although Jona likes a few maps that I consider a bit too big for NA2, but I remember them being fun back when we could populate them, so whatever.

The only map that I suggest removing that neither of you suggested is native_hailes_castle
(click to show/hide)
It is indeed small as Jona said, but attackers have a longer run for this castle than almost any other map (and I swear the attacker spawns just keep moving further away as the timer counts down). And the run is mostly uphill, so even a donkey doesn't help. All is well and good inside the castle, but that run is so aggravating.

Carry on
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Voncrow on September 05, 2014, 03:04:20 pm
ridoma_castle
(click to show/hide)
This castle has a few problems, the first I'd say is the awkward spawn that should be moved more towards the ladder. Another thing it needs is a fix for the path inside the back left wall that you can go through, that is too easy to abuse whether a mistake or not and should be removed.

Citadel
(click to show/hide)
This map was better originally, Could use a ladder or something on the back right wall and needs a fix for spawning outside the wooden gate towards flag. Also should remove the battlements from the door to flag room and just add a door again.(Maybe a really strong door?).

Rochester_Castle
(click to show/hide)
Nothing wrong here, maybe place more spawns at the flag area or remove any off?

Native_Brunwud_Castle
(click to show/hide)
Not much to fix here other than that gunk in front of the gate, is kind of unnecessary.

Ishtar
(click to show/hide)
Ishtar I think is a fine map that should stay, although it would be preferable if you removed that constant ladder up to the left inner wall, we already have the hardcore par-core jumping from tent to terrace on the left to get in the inner keep.

Windfall_Castle
(click to show/hide)
I like this map and would like to add it to rotation if it's not in already, haven't seen it in a while.

Viking_Village_Siege
(click to show/hide)
I wouldn't even consider this a siege map, the fact that it's used in dtv should show that it shouldn't be on siege rotation. No siege type combat and has about one layer of combat.

Bridge_of_Eldia
(click to show/hide)
I don't really like this map, maybe if you fix the back right where attackers can just walk in blatantly without any resistance.

Bragelon_Castle
(click to show/hide)
This castle parts where it was broken were fixed, but the map is still somehow to small, you added a ladder that cut the map in half and therefore made it way too short even though that would be it anyway.

al_khal
(click to show/hide)
This map was broken and is now whole again. I would like this map but you need to add attacker spawns so we can fight on the wall, and also a ladder that leads to the back courtyard. Make so we fight in front as well and some access to the back other than stairs and this should work fine.

I'll continue later as I have to go now.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Penitent on September 05, 2014, 04:05:01 pm
I'm so proud of you, siege bros.  I would shed a tear if I could find the emoticon that accurately expressed my feelings.

From my first outlandish suggestion to add bots to the siege server, to an organized, concerted effort to improve the map rotation in real and concrete ways -- this is such a happy time.

I also agree with the suggestions so far, and trust ya'lls judgement.  Fips, thank you.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on September 05, 2014, 04:09:27 pm
Or just join NA1 since siege is an inferior game mode (lol "team death match where lives mean nothing") with inferior maps.  One life per round makes everything you do that much more important. 
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Penitent on September 05, 2014, 04:14:28 pm
Quote from: CrazyCracka420 on September 05, 2014, 04:09:27 pm
Or just join NA12 since siege is a an inferior game mode mode where you can actually play almost 100% of the time you are at your computer. (lol "team death match where lives mean nothing there is nonstop action and constant slaughter at chokepoints and strategic locations") with inferior ever-improving maps.  A concrete objective and the required teamwork One life per round makes everything you do that much more important.   Plus there's CASTLES and shit.




Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 05, 2014, 04:24:00 pm
Quote from: CrazyCracka420 on September 05, 2014, 04:09:27 pm
Or just join NA1 since siege is an inferior game mode (lol "team death match where lives mean nothing") with inferior maps.  One life per round makes everything you do that much more important.

I've given Battle a chance many times now, and I still can't get into it. The XP/gold are good, they give out valor like candy, but it's just not very fun for me. Everyone is so afraid to die, that they just run around in a clump picking on outnumbered foes, and retreating if they get outnumbered themselves. Then EVERY round ends with the eventual winning team sitting at the flag waiting for it to raise while some delaying cav or archer screws around on the other side of the map. The outcome of the round is decided by the autobalancer, so if you are on the obvious weak team, the best way to protect your multi is to abandon teamwork and go solo valor hunting.

But you are cav, so you aren't playing the same game as I am. For us melee, siege offers nonstop melee action without having to spin our cameras around the entire round looking for cav about to couch us in the back.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on September 05, 2014, 06:32:57 pm
Lazy
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 05, 2014, 08:03:48 pm
Quote from: Fips on September 05, 2014, 12:45:04 pm
Holy shit, you guys actually accomplished something =D
I'll go through your posts and get rid of some maps then, in the meantime keep it coming, the more feedback (Especially on the bad maps, if the map is fine just leave it uncommented)

One thing though, there will be no edits to the maps themselves, it's either out or in for them.

That's fine by me. Would you be willing to consider Para's old suggestions on some of those Quick_Battle maps? That could substitute for a lot of the removed ones, and give us something new to try.

Wish I knew how to pull them up to view them though, at that point I could give you a more accurate depiction of them. I'll also see if Para can re-upload them some how since all his links got broken.

Also Huseby, smd. :]
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on September 05, 2014, 08:49:45 pm
present thy d
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 05, 2014, 09:13:14 pm
Quote from: CrazyCracka420 on September 05, 2014, 08:49:45 pm
present thy d

…………………...- *" \ - / "::*' \
………………„-^*'' : : „'' : : : :: *„
…………..„-* : : :„„--/ : : : : : : : '\
…………./ : : „-* . .| : : : : : : : : '|
……….../ : „-* . . . | : : : : : : : : |
………...\„-* . . . . .| : : : : : : : :'|
……….../ . . . . . . '| : : : : : : : : |
……..../ . . . . . . . .'\ : : : : : : :  |
……../ . . . . . . . . . .\ : : : : : : : |
……./ . . . . . . . . . . . '\: : : : : : /
….../ . . . . . . . . . . . . . *-„„„„-*
….'/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' |
…/ . . . . . . . ./ . . . . . . . |
../ . . . . . . . .'/ . . . . . . .|
./ . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . .'|
'/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'|
'| . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . .|
'| . . . . . . \„_^- „ . . . .|
'| . . . . . . . . .'\ .\ ./ '/ .|
| .\ . . . . . . . . . \ .'' / . |
| . . . . . . . . . . / .'/ . . .|
| . . . . . . .| . . / ./ ./ . .|
'| . . . . . . . . .'\ .\ ./ '/ .|
| .\ . . . . . . . . . \ .'' / . |
| . . . . . . . . . . / .'/ . . .|
| . . . . . . .| . . / ./ ./ . .|
'| . . . . . . . . .'\ .\ ./ '/ .|
| .\ . . . . . . . . . \ .'' / . |
| . . . . . . . . . . / .'/ . . .|
| . . . . . . .| . . / ./ ./ . .|
'| . . . . . . . . .'\ .\ ./ '/ .|
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 05, 2014, 09:19:56 pm
Can anyone turn a thread downhill faster than Huseby?

We went from insightful discussion of map-induced gameplay mechanics to an ASCII penis within a couple posts of him showing up.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on September 05, 2014, 09:28:09 pm
I'll have you know I've graduated from massive shit poster, to a minutely valuable contributor.  I'm significant. 

Also that penis is a little narrow
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tojo on September 05, 2014, 09:37:57 pm
Quote from: CrazyCracka420 on September 05, 2014, 09:28:09 pm

Also that penis is a little narrow

Yea, when you are comparing your chode. Gottem

Please add some small villages to fight in, maybe some native town maps with flags in the center?
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: kwhy on September 05, 2014, 09:40:21 pm
Quote from: Tanken on September 05, 2014, 08:03:48 pm
That's fine by me. Would you be willing to consider Para's old suggestions on some of those Quick_Battle maps? That could substitute for a lot of the removed ones, and give us something new to try.

Wish I knew how to pull them up to view them though, at that point I could give you a more accurate depiction of them. I'll also see if Para can re-upload them some how since all his links got broken.

Also Huseby, smd. :]

if you guys provide me a list of the map names then I don't mind loading up the editor and taking a screen shot and posting it.  It is pretty easy to do, but a little time consuming.

on this one...

bragelon_castle
(click to show/hide)

is the map with the tiny little basement room with 2 doors that can only be reached from opposite sides of the castle and stairs.  One problem I have is that the doors can't be open (just played this week) by defenders unless your inside the room.  So you end up breaking down the door typically trying to defend it when the attackers are coming from the other side.  I don't know if there is a spawn inside the room or not.

On a similar note I understand the reason why some doors might not be setup to open from both sides, but on low population servers this makes some maps very easy for 1 guy to ninja the flag room and win the map while the defending team sits out side picking their nose.

just food for thought

 


Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 05, 2014, 10:51:10 pm
Quote from: kwhy on September 05, 2014, 09:40:21 pm
if you guys provide me a list of the map names then I don't mind loading up the editor and taking a screen shot and posting it.  It is pretty easy to do, but a little time consuming.

That would be awesome... I'll leave that up to Tanken since I don't know what maps Para had suggested be added.

Also, thanks a lot for getting those other pics too, sure was a huge help. And on a side note, thanks for being vocal on the forums... I've seen you in-game an awful lot this past year, yet to the overlords the only people who matter are those that post here on the forums. Even though you have been in game a lot up until now, they didn't know you existed til you started posting. We have been lacking siege bros posting here, making us seem like a smaller group than we actually are.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 05, 2014, 11:24:34 pm
Quote from: Jona on September 05, 2014, 10:51:10 pm
I never had any idea that all the Miss_____ characters were the same guy as ted until I saw your forum post a while back

Yeah, that was a surprise to me as well. For some reason I was always intimidated by Ted, but didn't see MissBEND as a big threat (hope it's not subconscious sexism; I don't consciously even notice the gender of characters). Or maybe Ted is higher level with a better build or something. Anyway, glad to see you posting here Ted/whatever you want to be called; I always enjoy fighting with/against you in-game.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 05, 2014, 11:28:15 pm
Quote from: kwhy on September 05, 2014, 09:40:21 pm
if you guys provide me a list of the map names then I don't mind loading up the editor and taking a screen shot and posting it.  It is pretty easy to do, but a little time consuming.

on this one...

bragelon_castle
(click to show/hide)

is the map with the tiny little basement room with 2 doors that can only be reached from opposite sides of the castle and stairs.  One problem I have is that the doors can't be open (just played this week) by defenders unless your inside the room.  So you end up breaking down the door typically trying to defend it when the attackers are coming from the other side.  I don't know if there is a spawn inside the room or not.

On a similar note I understand the reason why some doors might not be setup to open from both sides, but on low population servers this makes some maps very easy for 1 guy to ninja the flag room and win the map while the defending team sits out side picking their nose.

just food for thought



Para's maps he wanted added (his pic links are broken):

quick_battle_scene_4:
(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_scene_5
(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_7
(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_2
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: imisshotmail on September 05, 2014, 11:39:49 pm
Is the map that is a smallish oval castle, with a small gate that is basically a door still in the rotation? That is the best siege map i've played on I think. Very small way from attacker spawn to the castle, nice and open inside ect.

It's the castle in this Scoreboard.jpg http://i.imgur.com/qXwa2.jpg if any one can tell from that.

Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Digglez on September 05, 2014, 11:54:03 pm
Quote from: imisshotmail on September 05, 2014, 11:39:49 pm
Is the map that is a smallish oval castle, with a small gate that is basically a door still in the rotation? That is the best siege map i've played on I think. Very small way from attacker spawn to the castle, nice and open inside ect.

It's the castle in this Scoreboard.jpg http://i.imgur.com/qXwa2.jpg if any one can tell from that.

Pretty sure you are referring to Rudkan, which is.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 05, 2014, 11:54:43 pm
Quote from: imisshotmail on September 05, 2014, 11:39:49 pm
Is the map that is a smallish oval castle, with a small gate that is basically a door still in the rotation? That is the best siege map i've played on I think. Very small way from attacker spawn to the castle, nice and open inside ect.

It's the castle in this Scoreboard.jpg http://i.imgur.com/qXwa2.jpg if any one can tell from that.

Yes it is still around, luckily.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: imisshotmail on September 05, 2014, 11:54:52 pm
Quote from: Digglez on September 05, 2014, 11:54:03 pm
Pretty sure you are referring to Rudkan, which is.

(click to show/hide)

Yeah thats the one, great map.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Digglez on September 05, 2014, 11:55:56 pm
Quote from: CrazyCracka420 on September 05, 2014, 04:09:27 pm
Or just join NA1 since siege is an inferior game mode (lol "team death match where lives mean nothing") with inferior maps.  One life per round makes everything you do that much more important.

Or we could play a TEAM-based OBJECTIVE mode, instead of bro-loving time-trolling cav & HA shit fest mode
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: gallonigher on September 06, 2014, 07:19:09 am
I'm more than decent on battle but it's boring watching others play for 5 mins when you die to the occasional lucky shot.  Siege at least keeps it interesting most of the time. 

And I agree almost completely on the maps and points brought up by Tanken and Jona.  I'll only add that NA's usually small population would probably work better with the smaller/medium sized maps 
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: kwhy on September 06, 2014, 04:28:22 pm
Quote from: Jona on September 05, 2014, 10:51:10 pm
And for the love of god, tell us all which one of your several completely different names you prefer to go by... is it ted? kwhy? miss___? I never had any idea that all the Miss_____ characters were the same guy as ted until I saw your forum post a while back.

kwhy for whatever reason has been my gamer tag on xbox and steam for a long time, but since I play on the Ted build more lately it might be best to use Ted...or "hey retard" works as well  :mrgreen:

Quote from: Phew on September 05, 2014, 11:24:34 pm
Yeah, that was a surprise to me as well. For some reason I was always intimidated by Ted, but didn't see MissBEND as a big threat (hope it's not subconscious sexism; I don't consciously even notice the gender of characters). Or maybe Ted is higher level with a better build or something. Anyway, glad to see you posting here Ted/whatever you want to be called; I always enjoy fighting with/against you in-game.

I cycle thru them all as  I level up to 31-33 which I then retire for looms and move onto another build/char.  All generation 3 except for BENDaKNEE which is at 8 and LLpewJ which hasn't even hit 31 yet (damn u archers).  I ran Ted up to 33 1/4 recently which is highest I've been level wise so far.

Ted's a semi str 21-18 build (31 1/2 right now) 2H

missBENDaKNEE (2H hybrid axe thrower usually) -> I like playing this build, but get ass handed to me all the time.   Phew picks on her a lot with his shield :)

missANGY (2H/1H hybrid str build) -> shes just angry all the time

missAGAIN (pole/1h I think right now)

LLpewJ (first archer attempt...major fail so far, but might spend some time on it just to try)


Quote from: Phew on September 05, 2014, 11:24:34 pm
I always enjoy fighting with/against you in-game.

to Phew and all....thanks for all the deaths and and fun times in game so far. 

This is the one reason I like Siege mode is because it allows players to really ramp up skills and try out different builds which would be near impossible to do only in Battle.   

I personally like both Battle and Siege modes and its a shame there just isn't a lot of love for them both.

Quote from: Tanken on September 05, 2014, 11:28:15 pm


Para's maps he wanted added (his pic links are broken):

quick_battle_scene_4:
(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_scene_5
(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_7
(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_2
(click to show/hide)


I'll load it up and add pics to the list today.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: kwhy on September 06, 2014, 10:57:55 pm
heres the quotes with pics...

Quote from: Tanken on September 05, 2014, 11:28:15 pm

quick_battle_scene_4:
One of the best classic maps that I never understood why it was removed from the rotation.  A small map, but offers a ton of non-stop action. Defenders have to focus on blocking the siege tower and side ladder in the beginning, once the tower landing is overtaken by the attackers and the gate is opened, the defenders can fall back and defend the flag area. The flag area is big enough to allow a good deal of group combat while still keeping things interesting for both teams.

(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_scene_5 - This one is more geared toward archers, both on the front wall defending the oncoming siege tower and the flag area being on the ground below the castle walls. Use of the chokepoints on the front of the walls is necessary to hold off the quick reinforcements of the attackers. Once the attackers take over the front landing, the fighting becomes more centric in the flag area, which allows for large group fights.

(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_7 - Another small map with a use for every class. Infantry secure the tower landing and open the side gate, allowing for cav to come in and support the flag area. Archers also have a clear shot on the flag area from the walls. The flag area offers for more chaotic group fights.

(click to show/hide)

quick_battle_2 - This map caters more to cav than any other siege map out there. Once the attackers overcome the wall defenders, giant open field battles can occur in the massive inner courtyard.

(click to show/hide)



Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: kwhy on September 11, 2014, 11:59:02 pm
Ted - "the thread killer...."

so I guess we all lost steam on this one...mmm k.

How about just removing the conquest maps for now on NA or better yet how about modifying the game code somehow so that if the server's population is below a certain number for those maps to just not load?!

I've logged in briefly every night (I think) probably around 08-10:00pm CST USA NA2 and it has been on some conquest map most times now (I don't think I even see that one on the posted lineup (the one with the beach and like 20 flags to capture).

so I guess the maps don't run in a specific order either? because I know it isn't following the posted lineup I did in this thread on NA2.

Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 12, 2014, 03:48:26 am
Quote from: kwhy on September 11, 2014, 11:59:02 pm
Ted - "the thread killer...."

so I guess we all lost steam on this one...mmm k.

How about just removing the conquest maps for now on NA or better yet how about modifying the game code somehow so that if the server's population is below a certain number for those maps to just not load?!

I've logged in briefly every night (I think) probably around 08-10:00pm CST USA NA2 and it has been on some conquest map most times now (I don't think I even see that one on the posted lineup (the one with the beach and like 20 flags to capture).

so I guess the maps don't run in a specific order either? because I know it isn't following the posted lineup I did in this thread on NA2.

I am not sure, but I think the map rotation has some degree of randomization. This is why it will feel like you see some maps far less often than others, and you will also play the same map again after only 5 or so map changes. The cycle didn't complete and restart in only 5 maps, you just had bad luck. Maybe it goes through the map list like an mp3 player on shuffle (it will complete the rotation in any random order before beginning it again), or maybe it just selects one at random, in which case you could theoretically play the same map again, and again, and again.

Anyways, back on topic, I think we can mostly all agree that the established disliked maps (the large ones and the vertical ones), as well as all conquest maps (due to 35 second defense timers) should be removed in order for NA2 to once more have a slightly steady population (hopefully). Conquest is good in theory, but nothing clears out a server quicker as of now. Just the other day most of my clan was in siege along with some of KUTT and the server population was only increasing as time went on... until a conquest map came along and pretty much all the defenders left one after another within only 10 minutes.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Battlepriest on September 12, 2014, 03:51:18 am
moar native maps pls
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Fips on September 12, 2014, 01:59:29 pm
The cycle goes through every single map completely random and then starts again. If you play one map right next to each other it means the cycle started again.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Digglez on September 12, 2014, 05:20:02 pm
so while we're waiting for Xeen or whomever to review maps yadda yadda, can we at least have the conquest maps removed immediately so we can at least try and play?
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 12, 2014, 05:26:48 pm
I kid you not, I would rather play Jameyyed on endless loop than any rotation we've had at any point in the past 2 years. That map is the ideal of what works for NA2.

native_jameyyed_castle
(click to show/hide)

But yeah, at least start with removing conquest until you find a way to fix the defense respawn timers based on population and/or the reward system. Please.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 12, 2014, 05:48:36 pm
Quote from: Digglez on September 12, 2014, 05:20:02 pm
so while we're waiting for Xeen or whomever to review maps yadda yadda, can we at least have the conquest maps removed immediately so we can at least try and play?

I don't think Xeen wants to do it. Jona and I both made pretty decent suggestions. Anyone else is welcome to throw their hat in the ring so we have a third person available to compare with. Then, if Jona, or whomever, wants to compile a new rotation list for Fips, I'm pretty sure he can at least get the ball rolling on helping NA get a unique rotation.

I've been fairly sick lately and starting a new job, so I just haven't had the time to combine my list and Jona's and receive public opinion just yet.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 12, 2014, 07:27:43 pm
I could easily make a list out of our compiled suggestions, and any maps in question can be decided upon by a poll. Only thing is we need to ensure no EU (or NA1) trolls tamper with it...  :?
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Digglez on September 12, 2014, 07:36:15 pm
I nominate Jona as NA Siegemaster.  His dedication and well-written posts show he has the knowledge and passion to help us.  Please get this going SOON!
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tojo on September 12, 2014, 08:18:18 pm
Quote from: Tanken on September 12, 2014, 05:48:36 pm
I don't think Xeen wants to do it. Jona and I both made pretty decent suggestions. Anyone else is welcome to throw their hat in the ring so we have a third person available to compare with. Then, if Jona, or whomever, wants to compile a new rotation list for Fips, I'm pretty sure he can at least get the ball rolling on helping NA get a unique rotation.

I've been fairly sick lately and starting a new job, so I just haven't had the time to combine my list and Jona's and receive public opinion just yet.

I'd be glad to help if we can do it in TS so we can coordinate and get it all done at once.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 12, 2014, 08:24:00 pm
Quote from: Jona on September 12, 2014, 07:27:43 pm
I could easily make a list out of our compiled suggestions, and any maps in question can be decided upon by a poll. Only thing is we need to ensure no EU (or NA1) trolls tamper with it...  :?

Instead of a poll, you could just post a thread with a post for each map you are suggesting to be removed, and then people can upvote/downvote the post to indicate their agreement. This way you can filter out Huseby, EU trolls, etc. Also a good way to renown whore if you care about that (who does?). Results are harder to see at a glance though.

Quote from: Digglez on September 12, 2014, 07:36:15 pm
I nominate Jona as NA Siegemaster.  His dedication and well-written posts show he has the knowledge and passion to help us.  Please get this going SOON!

Seconded, but Jona has to promise to play alts at least half the time if we do manage to revive NA2. Dat long axe  :(
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 13, 2014, 09:55:46 am
Quote from: Phew on September 12, 2014, 08:24:00 pm
Instead of a poll, you could just post a thread with a post for each map you are suggesting to be removed, and then people can upvote/downvote the post to indicate their agreement. This way you can filter out Huseby, EU trolls, etc. Also a good way to renown whore if you care about that (who does?). Results are harder to see at a glance though.

Upvote/downvote would work pretty well... but if I am only adding posts for maps that are in question, I think I will be gaining a lot more infamy.  :lol:

But as you said, I couldn't care less what my renown-infamy ratio was. I will try and get something started soon... only question is should it be posted in General Discussion (where people will see it... unwanted people included) or in the Scene Editing area (where it technically belongs, and will inevitably get moved to should it be started in General Discussion)? Maybe it should stay in the Scene Editing part of the forums so less trolls show up? Not sure which the best approach would be. It all depends on whether you guys think we can gather enough siege bros in order to have a well-represented vote by word of mouth alone or not.

Quote from: Phew on September 12, 2014, 08:24:00 pm
Seconded, but Jona has to promise to play alts at least half the time if we do manage to revive NA2. Dat long axe  :(

Only sometimes... maybe. I have been playing on my swashbuckler alt a lot recently, but I have to say it is definitely far better to use in battle. First off, I went agi, so my swings pack the punch of a soft summer breeze and my armor is about as damage resistant as water-logged newspaper. It really doesn't make for a fun time when you have to jump into the fray all the time. Secondly, I lack a shield. Being a  shielder is far better in typical siege scenarios, and I might even retire or respec into a shielder really soon. While being a shielder is better, being a high level polearm spammer is even better than that!  :mrgreen:

EDIT:

Also, we should all let this moment go down in history, when even at 4am EST (what am I doing with my life?) NA siege was still going strong, stronger than NA1, even. I backed out hours ago, but damn... impressive, guys!

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 13, 2014, 04:14:44 pm
Quote from: Jona on September 13, 2014, 09:55:46 am
Upvote/downvote would work pretty well... but if I am only adding posts for maps that are in question, I think I will be gaining a lot more infamy.  :lol:

But as you said, I couldn't care less what my renown-infamy ratio was.

I was thinking you make a post "Remove Hrafninn?", show the spoiler with the overhead view of the map, then people plus if they agree the castle should be removed, and minus if they think it should stay. You wouldn't list every map in the rotation, just the ones we all complained about here. So presumably you would gain a lot more renown than infamy, although Huseby and other anti-siege trolls would minus everything. Again, not like you care, but keeps the discussion "glass half full".
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jack1 on September 13, 2014, 04:24:35 pm
Yeah. Last night was fun up untill we got to a conquest map where it was 1 1/2 hour of team deathmatch on the same map. That's when I stopped and I know a lot of people did too just because they didn't want to sit for 40 mins at x2 just to have a 50/50 on winning a x3.

There was also a regular seige map that was conquest mode. One flag to hold and once the attackers got there defenders couldn't spawn.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Fips on September 13, 2014, 04:48:52 pm
Quote from: Jack1 on September 13, 2014, 04:24:35 pm
Yeah. Last night was fun up untill we got to a conquest map where it was 1 1/2 hour of team deathmatch on the same map. That's when I stopped and I know a lot of people did too just because they didn't want to sit for 40 mins at x1 just to have a 50/50 on winning a x2.

There was also a regular seige map that was conquest mode. One flag to hold and once the attackers got there defenders couldn't spawn.

Fyi, conquest has a minimum of x2.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jack1 on September 13, 2014, 05:28:28 pm
Quote from: Fips on September 13, 2014, 04:48:52 pm
Fyi, conquest has a minimum of x2.

Don't change it when you quote it... God.....

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 13, 2014, 06:28:43 pm
Quote from: Jack1 on September 13, 2014, 04:24:35 pm
There was also a regular seige map that was conquest mode. One flag to hold and once the attackers got there defenders couldn't spawn.

I was amazed to see Siege get so high in population last night. I joined the server around 8pm, and there was only 8 people there. By Midnight, (and much later) we had over 65 players at some points. Pretty amazing.


Also, Jack is right. There is some sort of bug right now where a Siege map will randomly become a Conquest map--with 1 objective.  The spawn timers change for defense, and also, if the flag is contested and Offense's flag is raising, Defense can't spawn. I think this may have something to do with an admin changing the map--but I'm not sure. It's definitely worth looking into, especially when it happens in Low-Population. That kills the server. It also doesn't seem to be prone to any one map, either.


Good job last night Siege Bros. That was some fun stuff!
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: San on September 13, 2014, 07:29:52 pm
I was told that it checks for a certain prop when deciding that it's Conquest mode. Sounds like something that's bound to have bugs.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: gallonigher on September 13, 2014, 08:00:46 pm
Quote from: Jona on September 13, 2014, 09:55:46 am

(click to show/hide)

Exactly.  Last night only proved that the map rotation NEEDS an overhaul.  See how everyone stuck around when we didn't have to worry about shit maps killing the server?
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 14, 2014, 06:46:03 am
Vote on maps here! (http://forum.melee.org/scene-editing/na-siege-updated-rotation-vote-on-maps-here!/)

Try to spread the message over steam/etc. to any siege players. The more feedback we have, the better! Don't just vote and assume your whole clan agrees with you. Even if they do, get them all to show their support.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Taser on September 14, 2014, 08:11:24 am
Feels weird to be giving a minus on a post like that jona but I gave plenty of pluses and minuses. I refrained from a few since I either didn't recognize them or wasn't sure if I wanted it removed or not.

Good stuff though. Definitely a lot more maps up for removal than maps being added tho.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Battlepriest on September 14, 2014, 08:15:12 am
man i normally play siege and i've never once posted on this thread

hi guys so what's going on here
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 14, 2014, 08:23:56 am
Quote from: Taser on September 14, 2014, 08:11:24 am
Definitely a lot more maps up for removal than maps being added tho.

Oh yeah, there were maybe 20-25 up for removal and only what... 3 to be added? That is, assuming that the majority of us agree on their removal/addition. We definitely need to look at older maps... maybe some of them aren't so bad and can be brought back. Don't want the rotation to be only 10 maps... although 10 good maps is still better than 30 maps with only 10 worthwhile ones.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 14, 2014, 08:53:25 am
I would much rather have a handful of really good maps, instead of losing population over a shit map popping up every-other-hand.

However, if the voting goes right, we won't lose all of the maps that are set for removal. Really think about your experiences on the given maps before following the crowd on the voting (I know I had to go against the sort-of-popular-opinion on a few maps).

Also, can someone tell me what is the forum requirement to be able to + and - posts? There's lots of Siege players who never visit the forums that I'm sure want to give input, some of which are in KUTT.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Taser on September 14, 2014, 09:22:31 am
Quote from: Battlepriest on September 14, 2014, 08:15:12 am
man i normally play siege and i've never once posted on this thread

hi guys so what's going on here

Hi judas! Chime in with whatever you like.

Quote from: Jona on September 14, 2014, 08:23:56 am
Oh yeah, there were maybe 20-25 up for removal and only what... 3 to be added? That is, assuming that the majority of us agree on their removal/addition. We definitely need to look at older maps... maybe some of them aren't so bad and can be brought back. Don't want the rotation to be only 10 maps... although 10 good maps is still better than 30 maps with only 10 worthwhile ones.

Yeah might as well have all good maps instead of a lot of maps but only a few people actually want to play.

Or I just need to buckle up and try to actually try to make a map so people can criticize me bad map making skills. Then I respond with a box map with a flag in the middle with the spawn points in the air.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: kwhy on September 14, 2014, 04:24:49 pm
voted..

You know even on some of the maps that don't really work (on NA2) I've played them so much it's hard to think they might be removed from rotation.  It is like I've been brainwashed now to accept they need to be played.

oh well.  time to move on.  You were sort of fun I guess because you were there, but I'm looking for something more.  It is ok baby....It's not you, but me.  I just need something more.  I'm sure you'll find someone else that likes you.  It was fun while it lasted.  Goodbye.





Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jack1 on September 14, 2014, 05:30:07 pm
Quote from: Tanken on September 14, 2014, 08:53:25 am

Also, can someone tell me what is the forum requirement to be able to + and - posts? There's lots of Siege players who never visit the forums that I'm sure want to give input, some of which are in KUTT.

it's something like 20 posts
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 14, 2014, 07:29:46 pm
Quote from: Jack1 on September 14, 2014, 05:30:07 pm
it's something like 20 posts

I think there is a "spam" forum? So they can just spam crap in there to get to 20 posts.

Anyway, voted. Thanks SO MUCH for putting that thread together Jona. I'm sure it took a long time. And pre-emptive thanks to Fips for listening to us.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Tanken on September 14, 2014, 07:37:48 pm
Thanks guys. Also, great job on that effort Jona, and thanks for taking the time to do that. I'm actually tempted to go in and pick apart a few more siege maps that aren't in the rotation, and see if I can offer more Add suggestions.

I'm excited to see what these changes will do for NA's Siege population and its play-ability for everyone.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 14, 2014, 09:04:18 pm
No problem guys, it wasn't all that difficult to do... I just prepared a text document that was 95% copy pasta, and the plan was just to copy n paste snips of that document into individual posts. I could have pumped out a single post in 5 seconds tops, but the stupid anti-spam time limit really screwed that plan up.  :?

And I must say, judging from the results so far... I'm gonna be missing some of those maps.  :cry:  Some maps I thought might be maybe an even 50-50 split are completely one sided... interesting things be happening. I'm tempted to make a "going once, going twice" post on all the ones you guys are giving the boot that I personally think are acceptable, if for no other reason than variety. :D
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Voncrow on September 14, 2014, 10:42:26 pm
Quote from: Jona on September 14, 2014, 09:04:18 pm
No problem guys, it wasn't all that difficult to do... I just prepared a text document that was 95% copy pasta, and the plan was just to copy n paste snips of that document into individual posts. I could have pumped out a single post in 5 seconds tops, but the stupid anti-spam time limit really screwed that plan up.  :?

And I must say, judging from the results so far... I'm gonna be missing some of those maps.  :cry:  Some maps I thought might be maybe an even 50-50 split are completely one sided... interesting things be happening. I'm tempted to make a "going once, going twice" post on all the ones you guys are giving the boot that I personally think are acceptable, if for no other reason than variety. :D

Are you sure about ______, if not, upvote. If so, downvote.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Digglez on September 14, 2014, 11:30:40 pm
Quote from: Jona on September 14, 2014, 09:04:18 pm
No problem guys, it wasn't all that difficult to do... I just prepared a text document that was 95% copy pasta, and the plan was just to copy n paste snips of that document into individual posts. I could have pumped out a single post in 5 seconds tops, but the stupid anti-spam time limit really screwed that plan up.  :?

And I must say, judging from the results so far... I'm gonna be missing some of those maps.  :cry:  Some maps I thought might be maybe an even 50-50 split are completely one sided... interesting things be happening. I'm tempted to make a "going once, going twice" post on all the ones you guys are giving the boot that I personally think are acceptable, if for no other reason than variety. :D

Well now that you are boss, i would encourage you to make SMALL regular rotation changes.  Like 1 controversial/debated map a week and see how if/how the feedback changes at all.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 14, 2014, 11:48:57 pm
Quote from: Digglez on September 14, 2014, 11:30:40 pm
Well now that you are boss, i would encourage you to make SMALL regular rotation changes.  Like 1 controversial/debated map a week and see how if/how the feedback changes at all.

I don't know about boss, siege master, or whatever you want to call it. I need no title, nor do any of us to make a difference. If there is a map that you aren't happy with in a future rotation, just make a new thread and spread word of it, or post in either this thread or the other one where we voted. We are bound to have "conflict" maps where the community is split, those that just barely scrape by... these will no doubt come up in future discussions. Remember, if we remove all the bad maps now, then the "okay" maps will soon be the worst ones in the rotation, and people will soon grow to loathe those more than they should. It is a vicious cycle, and we will have to draw the line somewhere before we end up playing jamayyed on an endless loop. :D

EDIT: Make sure to check out the voting thread one more time, I posted 3 more maps that we can potentially add to the roster. I forgot to include some of the ones Tanken (or technically Para?) suggested.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 16, 2014, 05:22:03 pm
Lol, based on the vote thread, the hate for Burg_Rabenstein burns hot within the hearts of the NA2 community. Not surprising; whenever it pops up in the rotation, it's just a wall of spam from people leaving. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever seen the server survive 4+ rounds of that map.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 16, 2014, 06:24:18 pm
Meanwhile the love for rochester burns just as brightly, apparently. I was always under the impression that defense has way too much going for it, so I would have thought that would be a 50-50 map, since it is nice and all, but kinda imbalanced... instead it is almost unanimous in favor of it staying. I personally would have voted to give it the boot, but I don't even get a vote.  :o

Also we have our first EU voter... get out, nerd(s)!
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 16, 2014, 07:16:03 pm
Quote from: Jona on September 16, 2014, 06:24:18 pm
Meanwhile the love for rochester burns just as brightly, apparently. I was always under the impression that defense has way too much going for it, so I would have thought that would be a 50-50 map, since it is nice and all, but kinda imbalanced... instead it is almost unanimous in favor of it staying. I personally would have voted to give it the boot, but I don't even get a vote.  :o

With 40 people, offense is indeed screwed, but with ~20, it seems to be 50/50 unless D is super disciplined and sits at flag. Usually they get bored and go enjoy some team deathmatch in the courtyard then someone ninjas the flag. My only criterion for a good map is that it doesn't take long too get to the action (for either side), and Rochester generally qualifies. Compare that to Rabenstein where it can take an attacker like 2 minutes before they find someone to fight.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 16, 2014, 07:28:53 pm
Idk... I've had unorganized defenders hold against an organized attacking team... all it really takes is one person to shout "Hey, let's just camp the flag and keep this multi going" in team chat and suddenly the defending side is unbeatable. The only time defense loses is when they all go full retard and fight on the walls or courtyard, and everyone neglects the flag. Even then, if there is only one person ninja-ing the flag, odds are someone will spawn right next to him since half the defensive spawns are right up by the flag. The problem is that other than the defenders simply holding the high ground advantage, the stairs up to the flag are each two flights... which means that at some point or another an attacker's back will be to either the enemy archers (on the rooftop) or the enemy infantry (at the top of the stairs). Not to mention that at least on the back staircase a defender can easily use a long pokey polearm to stab at peoples' backs. Shielders don't know which way to look when advancing up the staircase, everyone else is just flat out screwed... not a fun time. The map is nice and all, and it has been around a while, but I just never have a real fun time on that one.

In other news... I am kind of surprised that the lighthouse is as hated as it is... that was another one I thought might be closer to a 50-50 split. I guess it can be a somewhat long walk for attackers, but other than that it isn't too bad imo. The walk might be long to the flag, but you are bound to fight plenty of defenders before that since not many people camp the flag on that map. It's not by any means a favorite of mine, but for the sake of diversity I don't want to give every single map that is below 99% balanced/fun the boot. Idk... we still have some time to go (should we call the vote complete come the end of this week? Or until X number of total voters have voted?), so assuming there are enough active forums users/siege players, things can still change.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Phew on September 16, 2014, 07:39:28 pm
Quote from: Jona on September 16, 2014, 07:28:53 pm
In other news... I am kind of surprised that the lighthouse is as hated as it is... that was another one I thought might be closer to a 50-50 split.

I downvoted Lighthouse solely because it's another one of those maps where defenders can't open their own damn door to the flag. There is also an exploit where attackers can parkour up the right wall and jump directly to the flag, and this happens often.

Your choices as a defender are either fight in the courtyard then rage while you helplessly watch flag get capped, or sit at the flag twiddling your thumbs.

If defenders could open that door and the exploit was fixed, it would be a good map. But alas, we are voting on maps "as-is", so it has got to go.
Title: Re: Attn: NA Siege Bros
Post by: Jona on September 16, 2014, 07:51:06 pm
True, I forgot about the broken door*. As for the parkour method... it isn't THAT bad of an exploit in my opinion, now that it is well-known. Oftentimes there will be either defensive archers up above that side, or simply a defender who is just spawning as you try and parkour your way to victory. Not to mention that it is a time-consuming process, even when executed perfectly. You are completely vulnerable and highly visible for at least 15 seconds as you scramble up the side wall. Honestly I use this method as a defender more often than an attacker to get to the flag since it is more likely to be safer (hopefully there are more defenders around this area than attackers) than when attacking. This method helps to cut off an attacker you see going the back ladder. Ideally this map could use some work... the door on the back right side (looking from attacker's spawn) is nearly useless with the staircase right next to it providing a much quicker path. If this backdoor could be combined with a new entry point to the flag area, to replace the exploit with a legitimate pathway, then this map would be pretty good, I think. Unfortunately it isn't really worth discussing, since apparently we can't get custom versions of maps, even if we edit them ourselves or want to use an older version... oh well.


*Broken, or working as intended? You have to remember, back in the day to lock a door they would just bolt it shut with a wooden beam... fancy locking mechanisms with keys and such were far too expensive to be used absolutely everywhere. Not to mention most locks are relatively weak compared to a massive piece of timber. I kind of imagine that in order to get out of a gate you have to hold F to remove the bolt and then open the gate... who knows how you successfully close the door on your lonesome. It isn't exactly like you are just inserting a key, turning the knob, and then locking it back up as you leave. Well, that is my take on the situation, anyways. Nevertheless, not being able to get in from the outside still sucks for gameplay. This map should really just have a solid door instead at the flag, that way defense can open it from either side and they also aren't able to poke attackers through it... that is my main complaint with these 1-way gates.