NA Siege Updated Rotation - Vote on Maps Here!

[Jona]

I think im going to start playing in NA siege now... 

Good, one more recruit to help populate the server. 

[Apple_the_Green]

Oh yay, bunch of native castle maps!

[Phew]

REMOVE
irongron_castle

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Played this last night, it was really boring as usual. All the fighting occurs in the flat, wide open courtyard by the flag; no progression whatsoever. The ballista troll factor is also high on this map (nothing like running for 30s+ along the walls toward flag, only to get ballistaed right as you turn the last corner).

Note that only 13 people voted on this map, but 70% voted for its removal. +6 doesn't look very convincing, but 70% does.

[Jona]

Right, I think we need to go back through the results and all the new "trouble" maps should be re-evaluated based on the percent of (NA) votes on them. What should the threshold be, though? 2/3 majority? 70... 75... 80%? Also I am not sure how much control we have over it but the siege-turned conquest maps (the maps with only 1 spawn point/flag) really need to get fixed, and turned back into siege. Those maps are the worst and ruin everyone's day with the 30 second defense respawns.


And on a similar topic... how do we feel about conquest in general? I like a couple of the maps, however playing the same map for nearly 1.5 hours is really rough... it should kinda be just 1 round per map, imo.

[Phew]

however playing the same map for nearly 1.5 hours is really rough... it should kinda be just 1 round per map, imo.

Yeah, I like 1 round per conquest map, because conquest is much more fun with random teams. Attacking against a banner stack always causes most attackers to quit.

Banner stacks on regular siege maps aren't so bad, because often the map imbalance counteracts the stack imbalance (i.e. offense banner stack on a map that favors defense).

[Jona]

i.e. offense banner stack on a map that favors defense

If only that actually happened on a regular basis... as soon as KUTT comes along and breaks out the plate they always seem to end up on easy defense. 

[Phew]

If only that actually happened on a regular basis... as soon as KUTT comes along and breaks out the plate they always seem to end up on easy defense. 

I've noticed that too; their builds/gear are definitely set up for siege defense (lack of shields make them vulnerable to ranged when attacking); I have no idea how they always end up on D. Luckily they always mass quit the first time they lose, so it's a short-term issue.

All the other siegebros could spec hybrid throwers with jarids or lances; would be the rock to KUTT's scissors.

EDIT-Before Tanken gets mad; I like that KUTT helps populate siege. It's just frustrating diving headfirst into a mass of armor and pierce weapons round after round, when your team is always a collection of uncoordinated  randoms, most of whom quit a minute or two into the round. It's siege at its best when another coordinated clan is on the opposite team tho.

[Jona]

I've noticed that too; their builds/gear are definitely set up for siege defense (lack of shields make them vulnerable to ranged when attacking); I have no idea how they always end up on D. Luckily they always mass quit the first time they lose, so it's a short-term issue.

All the other siegebros could spec hybrid throwers with jarids or lances; would be the rock to KUTT's scissors.

I think that I might very well end up rage-respeccing my alts quite often to do just that. Unfortunately my main will more or less be stuck as-is, and I could never add hybrid throwing to my build since throwing is still quite cancerous.

(click to show/hide)

Heh... rock = blunt damage. KUTT = plate crutch. Blunt beats plate.

Also, if you assume that paper is the "cut" damage equivalent, then scissors would be pierce (they are quite sharp and pointy, after all) and KUTT is probably 90% pokey polearmers.

Clearly you spent a lot of time thinking this through, and I'm not looking too far into it or anything.Well done, 10/10 joke.

(click to show/hide)

Goddamnit, I'm derailing my own thread.

[Phew]

ADD

quick_battle_scene_5

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

This map was fun/nostalgic the first time after it was re-added, but it really is an awful map. It takes attackers like 2 minutes to push the siege ramp up the hill, then all the fighting happens on the ramp. Now that we all got to play it a few times, I think it's time to retire it for good.

Also, could the conquest maps be reduced to 1 round each? The losing conquest team often mass-quits, and over an hour of the same map is too much. Also, banner stacks can seriously ruin conquest.

[Jona]

(click to show/hide)

This map was fun/nostalgic the first time after it was re-added, but it really is an awful map. It takes attackers like 2 minutes to push the siege ramp up the hill, then all the fighting happens on the ramp. Now that we all got to play it a few times, I think it's time to retire it for good.

Also, could the conquest maps be reduced to 1 round each? The losing conquest team often mass-quits, and over an hour of the same map is too much. Also, banner stacks can seriously ruin conquest.

It's funny, because conquest is more balanced before the balancer kicks in. 

Honestly, the first rounds of siege/battle/conquest are almost always the most balanced rounds each map, since odds are if you split everyone up randomly between two teams that you will have an equal split of good/bad players on each team. Once the banner balance kicks in, then it just makes super stacks.