Open Field Battle

[Beans]

I'm not arguing whether the spawn system needs to be changed or not.  I'm arguing that the attackers had just as fair as a chance as the defenders.

Erm the whole reason that everyone is upset is because the attackers and defenders do not have an equal chance. Hence the 3 days of complete slaughter for attackers in almost all of those battles.

[CrazyCracka420]

Erm the whole reason that everyone is upset is because the attackers and defenders do not have an equal chance. Hence the 3 days of complete slaughter for attackers in almost all of those battles.

And I'm saying that the attackers had the same opportunity.  They had everyone spawned in by the time our infantry marched over the hill.  Maybe the map needs to be larger on the battle maps.  They had an equal chance as the defenders, the defenders were highly organized.  The attackers were not.  What do you expect when you have a massive player base with half of them being trolls trying to fight a highly organized alliance?

[Overdriven]

And I'm saying that the attackers had the same opportunity.  They had everyone spawned in by the time our infantry marched over the hill.  Maybe the map needs to be larger on the battle maps.  They had an equal chance as the defenders, the defenders were highly organized.  The attackers were not.  What do you expect when you have a massive player base with half of them being trolls trying to fight a highly organized alliance?

For 3 days the attackers in just about every battle were a disorganised rabble and the defenders super soldiers?

PS: Tunnel vision is bad

[Gumdrawp]

No, you guys are bitching and complaining that you were beaten because it was "unfair" playing conditions.  You had every single opportunity that we did.  You bitched and complained about specific points.  I destroyed your points.  Now you resort to talking shit.  Good argumentative skills you have there.

And I'm saying that the attackers had the same opportunity.  They had everyone spawned in by the time our infantry marched over the hill.  Maybe the map needs to be larger on the battle maps.

clearly and the goons will forever maintain control of the desert becuase of their superior tactics used against every "unorganized peasant" that dares to attack until the spawns change.

Ask pecores/shogunate/templars about their battles this morning, im sure theyre just as upset as we are.

[CrazyCracka420]

For 3 days the attackers in just about every battle were a disorganised rabble and the defenders super soldiers?

PS: Tunnel vision is bad

I can only speak from my personal experience in dfc attacking ats.  I was on ATS side and at 60 seconds after we started spawning, we all mass re-spawned on our spawn point.  60 seconds after that respawn the entire dfc side was spawned in.  At this point I was within eyesight of their spawn and they had a massive infantry force around their spawn with cav circling.  So complaints that the battle was unfair are not based on reality.  It's possible that when our side respawned 60 seconds in, that was just an admin respawning us (and this didn't happen in other battles), I don't know, I've never been in a battle before.  I can only speak from my personal experience.

clearly and the goons will forever maintain control of the desert becuase of their superior tactics used against every "unorganized peasant" that dares to attack until the spawns change.

Ask pecores/shogunate/templars about their battles this morning, im sure theyre just as upset as we are.

Like I said above and before, I don't know if those battles were the same as dfc vs ats.  if they were, then I don't see anything unfair.  if one side got a full 60 seconds to attack before the other starts spawning, then obviously it's something that the developers should change.  I didn't see that in our battle though.

[Xol!]

I don't know, I've never been in a battle before.  I can only speak from my personal experience.

Which is what, exactly?  Nothing?  You just admitted that this is your first battle, so you don't even know how they work.  Your only experience is with an experimental spawn system that didn't perform as planned.

[dodnet]

I can only speak from my personal experience in dfc attacking ats.  I was on ATS side and at 60 seconds after we started spawning, we all mass re-spawned on our spawn point.  60 seconds after that respawn the entire dfc side was spawned in.  At this point I was within eyesight of their spawn and they had a massive infantry force around their spawn with cav circling.  So complaints that the battle was unfair are not based on reality.

One difference in that battle might have been that there was a longer distance to the other faction and you where on foot holding shields, while the most other had at least a few cav that were at the enemy within seconds.

Also in the video of your battle it seems as if the defender is still spawning or just have finished spawing when you arrived at him. So there is almost no time for the defender to set up any formation with all its soldiers. That IS a big disadvantage, hence the fact that always the attacker gets into a defensive position right after start which is just stupid.

[Gumdrawp]

One difference in that battle might have been that there was a longer distance to the other faction and you where on foot holding shields, while the most other had at least a few cav that were at the enemy within seconds.

Also in the video of your battle it seems as if the defender is still spawning or just have finished spawing when you arrived at him. So there is almost no time for the defender to set up any formation with all its soldiers. That IS a big disadvantage, hence the fact that always the attacker gets into a defensive position right after start which is just stupid.

oh hey look, common sense  . I personally don't even care that much about losing our shit as of right now. I'm more upset that chadz doesn't think that its an issue that a team is capable of winning before the other team completely spawns (see LLJK vs whatever the third battle this morning was) we took their spawn when ~25 of them had actually spawned. The current system turns every attacking party into defenders currently unless there are barriers between the spawns as is the case with castles and cities or the spawn is an extremely long distance ( >120 seconds on foot) away from the defenders spawn.

[Diomedes]

One difference in that battle might have been that there was a longer distance to the other faction and you where on foot holding shields, while the most other had at least a few cav that were at the enemy within seconds.

Cav may have already gotten there (though from what I've heard they were just scouting) but nobody really died until the infantry got there.  The orders, in fact, were for the cav to charge when the infantry lines were about to meet.

Also in the video of your battle it seems as if the defender is still spawning or just have finished spawing when you arrived at him. So there is almost no time for the defender to set up any formation with all its soldiers. That IS a big disadvantage, hence the fact that always the attacker gets into a defensive position right after start which is just stupid.

  In Zanthos' video it shows how the dfc team had 30 full seconds to spawn their last 7 guys before the infantry lines met.

I'm with most people in that I think there need to be some changes, but we shouldn't have an overly distorted view of what went on in this particular battle: 1) some equipment didn't spawn and 2) defenders spawned a few seconds (20?) too early than was fair.

[Smoothrich]

What's unfair is that the battle lines meet directly in front of Attacker spawn if the Defender's move up to meet the army, and all it takes is such schmuck with a shield to waltz in and tap F in the middle of the melee to screw over thousands of tickets worth of gear and planning.  Huck about all the NE organization you want but there was no way for us to decide the fighting to be done anywhere but right next to our spawn, which considering the cap mechanics is a HUGE disadvantage.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

FYI for the ATS vs dfc battle, I was cav commander and we didn't zerg spawn--we moved off to the right and charged with the infantry.  But bear in mind, I said this when chadz first posted this feature:

So this means I can ninja the enemy attacker spawn and stop the battle?

And it turns out its true, just with a slight spawn protection.  Until it gets changed, though, you gotta live with it.

[Overdriven]

Again...for the 1000000 time:

Thanks - we're working on it.

[3ABP]

When medics says about "Cancer healing" - "we are working on it" - I understand. It's a long process.
But when just need a say\write couple of words (rule) - and answer is "we are working on it"...
I can't understand it.

[Overdriven]

When medics says about "Cancer healing" - "we are working on it" - I understand. It's a long process.
But when just need a say\write couple of words (rule) - and answer is "we are working on it"...
I can't understand it.

That's what chadz always writes. As do most of the devs. Just have to trust they correct it and do a good job of it (most of the time they do).

[wylker]

The spawn system should probably be something like:

Both attackers and defenders both 100% spawn at 0 seconds. For 60 seconds, attackers leaving spawn range of 30m are tp'd back to spawn, defenders leaving maybe 100m of spawn or whatever makes sense on the maps get tp'd to spawn. Problem solved.

Also our new theme is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BsBXp6VkvU