My take on why the siege became so popular after the xp boost

[Helrekkr]

I think we should just change battle mode to be more like Strategus battles, give each faction a number of tickets (¬1000) and fight it out. Way more fun, and you can see how the battle is turning etc.

[Freland]

Hmm the problem with doing it more like Strategus is that it would make it very hard for infantry. First goal in every open battle map should be to take out enemy cav so that you can engage in close combat without fearing to be backstabbed by cav. And the archers and throwers would never go out of ammo so the ranged spam never stops. Welcome to Infantry hell...

[Thomek]

I rather think strategus should be more like battle-mode. Series of pitched battles rather than the stream of men they have now.

[Roran Hawkins]

We, Roses have a very strict code. We can only use the described armour and weapons.

I have cursed many noob players in max armour who can 1hit me without any skill.
 (AKA sniperXbow stormtroopers, seen the quantity and the similarity,(sniperXbow, tears/coockies, lolhammer, fullplate))

[cmp]

Unrelated shit moved to http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,175.0.html

[Vexus]

That is why I sometimes like siege more then battle but on this mod siege is not balanced at all and could be more frustrating then battle mode.

I would love some tweakings for after patch since exp/gold will be changed maybe it will be like native again were defenders CAN successfully defend a castle not always losing unless the teams are unbalanced.

[Jacko]

How did this turn out to be a "i'm-better-then-you thread"? If everyone could stop making silly assumptions about each others play styles this could actually turn out to be a good thread. Agi-spammer and elephant-nub-rider, use PM's instead, this wannabe E-peen contest is silly.

Now, on to the actual thread: NEVERMIND

I agree with bablefish on most points. I find myself joining Siege oh so more then Battle. Why?
Well, I get to play more or less instantly and "teamwork" if forced (we have a common goal, like it or not, we are going the same way). Somehow Siege is much more relaxed and less spastic then regular Battle. Probably because of the respawn and the way exp/money is counted: I don't have to play my very best just to stay alive, I can still skirmish around and get money without losing out on money and exp. While I do enjoy battle, I feel that modes like siege is necessary and Vital to the game in the long run (hell, being a peasant on a full battle server is awful).

Simply put, Siege doesn't require (read demand) your full attention, and sometimes that's all you want (you know, for the game to be a game and not just a chore you do to gain money).

[bruce]

All highlevel, highend gear chars rape. Some more the others, and some really do offer easier gameplay than others. Some are outrageously stupid (Finished and his panzerhorse, all highlevel archers, 10+ PT people), some only really stupid (lolstab of doom abusers).

And everyone thinks his stuff/build is not a problem, but the other guy's stuff/build is, so thomek will say 30+ agi chars (with 18 str to boot and heirloomed weapons) are fine, archers as a matter of course think nothing is broken about archery, horsemen "need" their panzerhorses because, imagine, unarmoured ones die easy, etc.... and tbh, none of it IS fine, imo.

Btw, playing as a highlevel is really easy. I'm not some expert manual blocker - but eg. with the last iteration of my polearmer - using a heirloomed long voulge (which is a 83 speed unbalanced weapon with 39c and 20p stab, but on the upside very long and breaks shields) and I remember at times killing crowds of people (mainly playing on siege, although I did have a 2:1 K/D on battle too) by just backpedal-spamming at level 27 when I had 17/18 stats. It was easy to play, period - even without tincan armour (with heraldric mail and stuff, you have the armour rating equal to a ninja with lamellar and scale gloves, except you have a helm and slightly more wpf penalty).

While I love the overall character customization part of CRPG, the "power level infinity plus one" stuff which we have now (which is btw not THAT much a function of gear, largely of levels actually) is honestly fairly shitty. How does this tie into siege v battle? Easy. When you die in siege to some automatic railgun archer or 0 wpf tincan crossbowman or onehitted by spam / hammers / whatever - which is what often happens to people who're not yet level xyz with "uber" equipment, you get to respawn and fight again, and you get rewards anyway.

[Engine]

True, sieges are fantastic for peasants, at least those on the attacker side.

My two cents - too many archers. That about sums it up.

[Lady_Quilba]

Eloquently written. It seems to me you prefer the relatively quick respawn of siege.

I prefer the long breaks and intense all or nothing action streaks that battle offers. For me, that's just more exiting. Siege feels too much like a grind.

I love dying early and getting a break. Sometimes, i don't die early and i end up having a bit of a kill streak. Sometimes, i'm the first one rushing in and get promptly put down for my foolish courage.

To each his own. The game is what it is. Make the most out of it. 

That's why i love playing siege in defense. Limited lives should make you smarter

Should.

[Gaunt]

I agree with your sentiments though I don't think siege is really the answer to the problem, hopefully the patch is.

I agree with you that the addition of new weapons is horrendous at the moment. The real problem with adding new weapons is that people seem to think they should be better than native weapons.

Why use the native swords when you can get tears, cookies or spamberger?

Why use glaives and spears when they have these hideous halberds and spammable yet long and deadly new polearms?

I miss the medieval feel from native mount and blade. It is sad that cRPG decided to base itself on Late period weapons and armor.

[Rage_Guy]

 

[Thomek]

someone is asking for a mute.

[Rumblood]

Eloquently written. It seems to me you prefer the relatively quick respawn of siege.

I prefer the long breaks and intense all or nothing action streaks that battle offers. For me, that's just more exiting. Siege feels too much like a grind.

I love dying early and getting a break. Sometimes, i don't die early and i end up having a bit of a kill streak. Sometimes, i'm the first one rushing in and get promptly put down for my foolish courage.

To each his own. The game is what it is. Make the most out of it. 

This. I prefer battle and based upon the fact that NA battle has a greater population than NA siege 95% of the time, I also disagree with the entire premise of the OP. 

[Rage_Guy]

someone is asking for a mute.

Gaunt?