Respawn time in Siege

[Voin]

Hey guys,

In the couple of months that I played on siege server/s, the attacking team wins 70-80% of a time. Maybe it supposed to be this way, maybe...or it is different on different servers.

Maybe it will be good to reduce the respawn time for the defending team and this way bring more balance into the game?

Just and idea...

Thanks

[Phew]

Changes I'd like to see to help balance siege:

1. Doors starting weak on first round of each map (it's an easy fix, just do it already)
2. Less teamswitching autobalance, replaced with attacker spawn time autobalance. i.e. if attackers keep winning, increase their respawn timer, up to 30s (same as defenders)
3. Map design. Every map should have some way for defenders to shoot/stab people that are attacking the door without putting themselves in harm's way. Castles were designed to be defended against attackers with superior numbers. The map designs should reflect this

[Voin]

Changes I'd like to see to help balance siege:

1. Doors starting weak on first round of each map (it's an easy fix, just do it already)
2. Less teamswitching autobalance, replaced with attacker spawn time autobalance. i.e. if attackers keep winning, increase their respawn timer, up to 30s (same as defenders)
3. Map design. Every map should have some way for defenders to shoot/stab people that are attacking the door without putting themselves in harm's way. Castles were designed to be defended against attackers with superior numbers. The map designs should reflect this

AGREE

[Snoozer]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BUMP MAY YOU LIVE ONCE MORE


id be happy if all they did was give the defence 25 instead of 35 second spawn. why should defence take 7 times longer to respawn?

phews ideas are OPAWESOME

[Centurion]

i like the ideas

[Siboire]

+1!

[venrich_III]

King: *From atop his high soapbox* "The Blorks are invading from Blorklavad!"
Crowd: *Boos*
King: "We shall build a castle!"
Crowd: *Cheers*
King: "It shall be strong, and have wall that cannot fail!"
Crowd: *Cheers and whistles*
King: "We shall build a gate allowing our calvary to ride out and meet the invaders!"
Crowd: *Exuberance and fanfare*
King: "I'll let you decide who gets to open and close the gate during battles!"
Crowd: *stunted cheering while looking at each other*
King: "It'd be best if we don't have an overlook on the gate in case it's raining during the attack!"
Crowd: *Look up at the king*
King: "Also, I'd like a flimsy back door to the castle, 12-20 hits with a small sword outta take it down."
Crowd: *group /facepalm*
King: "And... sell all our boiling vats of oil to buy some ladders, need em strewn about the walls for aesthetics."

Really, we're limited by the game's design. But sometimes I can't help but imagine the thought process in map design. Usually... when I'm losing on defense.

[Snoozer]

^THIS!!!!!

but yes i think they were little nerfs in native due to the fact the defence had all the cards.but in native offence has ALL the cards. idk about you guys but i would not put a stupid wooden door that people could get in

[Patricklus]

+1

[Fips]

Changes I'd like to see to help balance siege:

1. Doors starting weak on first round of each map (it's an easy fix, just do it already)
2. Less teamswitching autobalance, replaced with attacker spawn time autobalance. i.e. if attackers keep winning, increase their respawn timer, up to 30s (same as defenders)
3. Map design. Every map should have some way for defenders to shoot/stab people that are attacking the door without putting themselves in harm's way. Castles were designed to be defended against attackers with superior numbers. The map designs should reflect this

1. Yeah, ruins first rounds almost every time.
2. Autobalance is actually fine that way. Pls don't change anything that makes the next round easier for one team. U'll probably get switched alot even if they change the balance (If you just let most players stay in one team and don't balance them enough u will get some superior-teams.)
3. Nah. Keep the castles balanced. No supercastles where u don't even get to see the flag.

4. Add selectable spawnpoints for defenders and attackers. This way attackers can get closer to the flag in time and defenders can just spawn at important points on the castle.

[Camaris]

Only thing i can agree in this thread is the doorbug in the first round.
It should be fixed.

If you change respawns a lot of work i did on my map to make it balanced for both teams
would be wasted. Blame the maps not the respawn. Or blame your team.

Maps are not responsible if your team is not defending the map but fighting somewhere else or hiding on towers shooting arrows.

[RandomDude]

U want to know why attackers win quite often?

Because very often, defenders are more interested in killing the attackers coming from spawn than actually defending the flag

So many times i see guys saying "Wow man, we really held that wall." and defenders have lost 2-3 times in a row

So many times im running to the flag from a far off spawn point, spamming "FLAG" and "Defend the flag" via voice and defenders are running in the oppoiste direction to gank 1 attacker

So many times there are 20+ defenders on the wall, watching the flag go down but still shooting arrows into shields, and while i agree that a none-melee archer can do nothing at the flag im pretty sure some of them can at least keep it up for a few seconds

U want to know, in that situation, why defenders WIN sometimes?

Because attackers are the same players as defenders. They attack a backdoor, managing to chop it down within the first minute, and then proceed to ignore that entry way for the rest of the round. They want to chase the lone defender who is at spawn, 1 guy being chased by 10 is not uncommon.

There's 60 seconds to go, defenders are rushing towards attacker spawn, attackers are ignoring the fast routes and going up ladders or ganking defenders, blissfully and ignorantly unaware that they are costing their team the round.

And within it all, I am standing in my expensive plate armour, desperately trying to win the flag position while fantasizing how good it would feel right now to abuse admin powers.

/rant

[Phew]

Having everyone at flag isn't always a viable tactic, because on most maps, attackers can get to flag within 30s, and defenders just lose the battle of attrition (unless the map has a good choke point near flag). The key is to have like 50-75% of defenders at flag, and the other 25-50% distracting the attackers far from the flag. Cav at spawn, archers kiting along the wall, pro blockers dueling people in the courtyard, etc. Attackers just can't resist the urge to chase some idiot around instead of taking flag.

I don't know how to make people actually use tactics on defense, other than maybe removing Kills and Deaths from the scoreboard for siege, and replace it with wins or something else actually related to the objective of the map. Battle is about killing the other team, so it makes sense to track K/D, but you can be the MVP of your team in siege without getting a single kill (shielder on flag, for instance). Or at least only track kills within a certain distance of the flag.

[Leshma]

Because very often, defenders are more interested in killing the attackers coming from spawn than actually defending the flag

^this

But that's because there's a lot of new (clueless) people who play siege. Basically siege population is a mixture of experienced clans who mainly play siege (HRE, Grey Order, Druzhina) and total noobs. Thefore siege is always imbalanced, just depends which clan is online at which time.

I'm GMT+1:

- 10 am till lets say 3 pm - Grey order or Druzhina (choose their banner in order to have multiplayer)
- later in the evening - Holy Roman Empire  (choose their banner in order to have multiplayer)
- during night - have no idea

I hope I solved your issue with siege

[Diomedes]

In my limited experience attackers win 60ish% of the time when there's more than 60 players on, and 75ish% of the time when there's less than 60.  Perhaps give defenders a -5s respawn time when there are fewer players on?