NA2

[Phew]

Well, obviously you guys have been doing siege wrong then for a very long time, even when it was populated enough. EU siege has a very good balance since i started playing cRPG, except for the newest maps that still need reworking, which is always the case. Balanced maps on first version is almost impossible to do on siege. Battle is much easier when it comes to balance.

In the rare cases NA2 is populated, most maps are balanced and it's awesome.

The problem is, in the pre-primetime period when there are 15ish people on, attackers win every round. So those people keep quitting so the population never grows to where it should be.

Defender respawn time scaling with population would singlehandedly resurrect NA2.

[Elindor]

Honestly, I find battle with over 80 players to just be a swarm fest where very little skilled combat goes on until the last 5 people on either team.

If we say an average night has 85 people in NA1 and 25 in NA2 (110 total), I'd love to see 10-20 go from battle to siege and have NA1 be at 65-75 and NA2 be at 35-45

There is enough to share....

Also, both game modes have their pros/cons...and I like each at different times...but one good thing about siege is the increased amount of "in combat" time. 
I also, being unbiased remind you, find I get in more 1v1 intense fights in siege than I do in battle where it often tends to just turn into mobs.

In addition, I've played battle enough lately to know that battle balance is just as bad as sieges....and unfortunately battle does not rebalance each round, so if it does a bad job balancing at round 2, it just keeps those teams until the end of the map...most often with the same result over and over.

--------------

Anyhow this is about NA2, not battle vs siege

[Fips]

When conquest should ever be fixed every single map would need a special NA version to get it going, and that's a hell of a lot work. IF it ever gets fixed. =/
I don't know if it's possible to change the respawn timer just for NA2 with the normal mode.


Also, this "siege is for noobs" mentality is the biggest bullcrap =P

[Elindor]

Also, this "siege is for noobs" mentality is the biggest bullcrap =P

^ This.

Some nights on siege the roster will be filled with people like Mori, Redarrows, Jaich, Jarate, Sauce, Smithy, Voester (and other Remnant), Rustyspoons, Onimaho, etc etc...and it is far from full of "noobs"

Unfortunately I partly blame that incorrect impression on NA2's lack of population...the NA sentiment that "siege is for noobs"

I actually find it easier to go kill some noobs in battle than in siege these days...

[CrazyCracka420]

I said the same thing about the pussies who played on the community server.  Playing on a server with 30 people will always make you a pussy when you could be playing in a server with 3 or 4 times your population.  Maybe not a noob however.

I'm selfish, I want all the players in the server I'm playing on.

[Elindor]

^ not sure how that makes pussies.

More population often means less intense man to man combat, and more just mobs on mobs and people getting lucky kills.  More accurate to real life medieval battles probably, but not necessarily more "skilled" or "manly".

And anyhow you are cav and although I respect your opinions on these forums, in this conversation that fact makes you rather biased

[CrazyCracka420]

Extremely biased in fact.  But even when I'm grinding dat gold (as infantry) I enjoy my time more on NA1.  Since there's more people, and you only get one death per round.  I like the "less skilled" mob fighting.  I'd rather have large clashes of infantry fighting 20v20 than have a 5 minute long 1v1 duel.

So I think my point is still valid, just give up on NA2 and play with the rest of the NA community on NA1.

[Elindor]

Lol.

Fair enough.

At least you're not making the "siege is for noobs, battle is for gud playars" statement...in fact you're kinda making the opposite 

[Tojo]

you can take our multis but you will never take our respawn timers.....FOR SIIIIEEEGE!

[Canary]

Or you could sally out, come over to NA1, stop playing an inferior game mode with less players, and stop splitting up the already very small NA community.

"I've been cavalry for a dozen generations and never play anything else."

Some people enjoy a smaller server, there isn't anything wrong with that.

^ This.

Some nights on siege the roster will be filled with people like Mori, Redarrows, Jaich, Jarate, Sauce, Smithy, Voester (and other Remnant), Rustyspoons, Onimaho, etc etc...and it is far from full of "noobs"

Unfortunately I partly blame that incorrect impression on NA2's lack of population...the NA sentiment that "siege is for noobs"

I actually find it easier to go kill some noobs in battle than in siege these days...

The thing is that a noob is more likely to spend time on a server with such a small amount of people per team without realizing that the game mode's balance is skewed because of it.


For my part, I play better when I'm not rushing towards some location constantly. In battle, it's when I hesitate because I've only got one life per round, and the breaks between if I die keep me from burning out on the game and zoning out. In strat battles, it's when I stick to the team and don't just try to rush flag because FLAG CAP SIEGE BREAK DOORS GO.

In siege, the teams aren't generally united, everyone's spread out and people will trickle into place by design of the game mode. People who don't know better don't get the benefit of being generally in the right place by design. It makes it harder to work with your team because of the spawn system, (plus the fact that it's just a "regular" game mode with nothing beyond multipliers on the line, so you don't tend to have people organizing like you do in strat) and as a team-oriented player that's incredibly frustrating.

I do not begrudge siege players and a different game mode should be a welcome thing, even if I don't personally enjoy it as much as others, the variety is nice.

[CrazyCracka420]

"I've been cavalry for a dozen generations and never play anything else."

Some people enjoy a smaller server, there isn't anything wrong with that.

Technically 13, but I retired once at level 32 and once at level 33, so I could be gen 16 if I did it right.

But I also have a 3rd gen alt that was a xbow/2h user and then a pure 2h user.

Even if I was always infantry I'd want to play with as many people as possible.  And yes, there is something wrong with having a different opinion than me.   

[Sir_Hans]

Devs need to admit they made a mistake and bring back deployable ladders to NA2... Who cares if you get ladder-pulted, quit crying and go back to NA1.

Also, remove auto(banner)balance all-together so teams don't become completely one sided after every round. It's more like auto-unbalance. amirite?


NA2 used to be so great, and now its been turned into complete dogshit, admit it. 

[CrazyCracka420]

Same problems when ladders were around, just that the advantage was more in favor of the attackers (since they could just bypass the "balance" barriers put in place on the maps). 

[dontgothere]

Well, obviously you guys have been doing siege wrong

No, you and the devs/admins are the ones doing siege wrong. You say that "you're aware of the situation" "it takes time" "it takes work" - but everything was fine until you lot fucked it up.
You can't do map rotation updates now because it requires a server restart. But you did do map rotation updates that required restarts back when you added in buggy maps that nobody tested, which drove players from siege over the course of like about a year while you did jack shit to fix things.
I'm not talking just about Conquest, I'm talking about numerous siege maps that were just ridiculously bad compared to what was in the rotation before, like that one that spawned eighty percent of defenders on a ledge they had to jump from and die, while all of the map besides the flag zone was buried in impenetrable underwater-type fog effects.
KUTT/Para offered you a fine map rotation a year ago. You had a bug up your ass, you wanted NA players to donate more money I guess before you did anything they wanted, and you didn't take the fix he GAVE you.

Or howabout all the extra work and time that went into "fixing" the overtime "bug"? You could have saved yourselves a lot of effort if you'd just left siege the way it was, which was perfectly fine.

The way that the situation on NA2 is being presented by the badmins is just a total misdirection. Things were grand and then dumbasses stuck their dicks up in it. That's not just what happened in NA2 siege, but what's happened to CRPG in general ever since chadz let other into the dev team.

Whoever has control over map rotation now shouldn't have it.
Whoever has control over balancing the siege game mode shouldn't have it.
Both NA1 AND NA2 were full before this shit happened and it's not just time that's caused the bleed of players.


p.s. free spook island

[dontgothere]

Ladders were the good shit. Forget about balance for a second, it's this crazy balancing fetish that's one of the things fucking up the game -- with ladders, siege was just plain more fun, and that's the first thing.
If ladders make it harder to defend then defenders should have a shorter respawn timer, better spawn points, or BEST OF ALL it should take longer to bring the flag down.
All by myself I can bring down a flag in like maybe 20-30 seconds. That's how long it should take two people to do it, if we leave defender respawns the way they are now.