Boring meatgrinder gameplay that needs to be fixed

[Corwin]

I support whatever you can do to make sieges stop sucking, and last for hours.

Perhaps, if at some point losses go over 1:3 ratio (or any other) an army loses it's morale and flees.
EDIT in bold...

[Flawless]

I also agree with adding back 60 mercs for each side in larger battles.

 As far as the re-spawn times go, as long as its based on the overall K/D ratio between the two teams and not on a person to person level it sounds good. Or even just the death ratio. So if you loose 25% of your forces, spawn time is increased a half a second or so. Not too much, as 1 or 2 seconds can make the difference between winning and loosing.

Or it can be increased if the other team has only lost 10% of their forces and you have lost 25%, so re-spawn time would increase the difference(which would be 15% increase)

[dynamike]

Gotta agree with this. When you only have a couple dozen people per side your options in terms of strategy are pretty limited since you need just about everyone on the front line. The amount of mercs each side was drastically cut in the most recent patches, this needs to be raised back up again to somewhere approaching 60vs60 if we want to see things like cavalry charges, flanking maneuvers, or anything suitably interesting, in my opinion.

That being said, I think the flags have a lot of potential to make things interesting, but a couple things need to be done with them:

1) Spread them out more in village/field fights - In most (not all) cases all the flags are clumped together in a little blob and it becomes "all or nothing" to take them. If they were spread out more it would be possible to deny some of them to the enemy and change the shape of the battle
2) Make a button other than "F" to interact with flags. Using the same button that picks up equipment off the ground to interact with flags is maddening. Usually there are bodies and weapons all over the goddamn place and trying to knock down a flag and picking up all sorts of junk instead is really annoying. It would be alot easier if flag interaction was just an entirely different button.
3) Change knocking down flags from enemy proximity sensitive to a 1-2 second action ala opening gates/operating catapults, so if an enemy (or teammate) is near you hitting you  it will interrupt you but some loser spawning a couple feet away and getting hacked to death instantly shouldn't stop you.

I think some changes like those would shift focus onto fighting over flags as a form of field dominance.

Either that or just have a couple flags at each spawn point, then flags throughout the map that if captured by your team would allow you to spawn there.

Good suggestions!

[Belatu]

 b) kill enemies in packs to get an advantage.

KILL

[Digglez]

Allow more players as previous posters mentioned.

10-15 second respawn would be ideal IMO.  If too much of your team gets routed and you lose a few flags, you're in deep shit.

Myself I prefer a static system (X sec to spawn no matter what) that people know how it works.  I would not enjoy something that attempts to scale or 'be smart'.

[Jarlek]

Allow more players as previous posters mentioned.

10-15 second respawn would be ideal IMO.  If too much of your team gets routed and you lose a few flags, you're in deep shit.

That would be too long, UNLESS every flag has it's own Spawn! So with 15 flag and 15 secs, that means on average one spawn every 1 secound. Let the spawn be a "cooldown" so you can immediately spawn on any flag that hasn't spawned anyone the last 15 secound.

Anyone think that would be possible?

[Crob28]

how about something along the lines of a lot of deaths in a short time = more ticket loss, for example each death = 1 ticket but say if 10 players die within 30 seconds or something then every death thereafter = 2 tickets and so on until the team taking the losses manages to regain its ground and stop dying so much.  This should allow the flow of battle to constantly change and effect which team has the advantage at different points.

[DarkFox]

imo respawn time should depend on army size. For example army A:1000 troops against army B:3000 troops. Army A will respawn every 3 sec, army B every 1 sec. So while fighting with 100 troops against 5000 peasants u will have a feeling that you are fighting against really big horde. Bigger army you have the stronger charge is.And ratio can change during the battle. Right now its like boring deathmatch.

[Digglez]

That would be too long, UNLESS every flag has it's own Spawn! So with 15 flag and 15 secs, that means on average one spawn every 1 secound. Let the spawn be a "cooldown" so you can immediately spawn on any flag that hasn't spawned anyone the last 15 secound.

Anyone think that would be possible?

this is kinda what I had in mind but couldnt describe well.  Ie...the more flags you have up, the faster your team spawns.  When you start losing flags it should increase respawn time for dead players.

generally the simpler the system the better.  all this talk of ratios, K/Ds and junk is just dumb.  it serves no purpose other than to screw people that want to try different tactics (kamikaze charge, cav charge, etc etc blah blah yadda).  you will pigeon hole tactics into the path of least resistance without a simple system.

[Jarlek]

this is kinda what I had in mind but couldnt describe well.  Ie...the more flags you have up, the faster your team spawns.  When you start losing flags it should increase respawn time for dead players.

generally the simpler the system the better.  all this talk of ratios, K/Ds and junk is just dumb.  it serves no purpose other than to screw people that want to try different tactics (kamikaze charge, cav charge, etc etc blah blah yadda).  you will pigeon hole tactics into the path of least resistance without a simple system.

Totally agree. Keeping flags up should be important and losing them should also slow your reinforcement rate. I say either by increasing spawn time for every flag lost, or have each flag having it's own spawn time (as I tried to explain earlier).

[Overdriven]

Meh...I like the idea of battles lasting for a long time at a 1-1 death/ticket ratio. But that may be because I've played in battles that last 12 hours every week in another tournament. A long siege in crpg is childs play in comparison.

[sWalker]

Agreed overdriven...the sWalker believes that every man/woman recruited and equipped should be treated as such...no scaling must be included in the battles.  In order to add more tactical movement, as others have stated, the mercenary number should be increased...either a higher set number as in the beginning of strat. 2.0, or a higher starting max value in the sliding scale developed by chadz and CO.

However, the sWalker sees no problem with implementing some sort of dynamic shift changes, if it is small and not overly difficult for chadz and Co. to code.  My favorites mentioned so far are the ones based on the troop differences(as long as the ratio only affects the spawn rate gently) and the one in Chads' and the sWalker's original posts.

[chadz]

its not necessarily the length that bothers me, as long as it is intense. However dont worry, we have a solution that will BLOW YOUR SOCKS OFF. or so.

[SchokoSchaf]

Has the usual shooter-style ever been tried?
Multiple spawnpoints clearly scattered over the map, each one seperately defendable? So if you loose one and are pushed back, you can still use tactics and regroup to hold others or even push back yourself, with maybe a smal penalty of a few seconds in spawning for loosing a spawn and no spawning while there is fighing around, so you can't just spawncamp.
Or at least sort of all this, don't really thought it through now. Though I support the idea of a leader figure.

[Belatu]

However dont worry, we have a solution that will BLOW YOUR SOCKS OFF. or so.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login