How do we repopulate NA siege?

[Tydeus]

I really cant work out why na2 would be dead yet eu2 has 60+ players most of the time i join O.o

Probably has something to do with how the perception of siege as a low-skill game mode is so prolific here. Now why that would be the case for NA but not EU, who knows.

[Paul]

Siege gates are too small for NA. Also too many stairs and no ramps.

[Tydeus]

Siege gates are too small for NA. Also too many stairs and no ramps.

Don't forget, prison informers.

[Bronto]

Whenever I get the urge to siege I play ranged on EU2.

[Nightmare798]

Whenever I get the urge to siege I play ranged on EU2.

they call it high walls syndrome...

[Dexxtaa]

Probably has something to do with how the perception of siege as a low-skill game mode is so prolific here. Now why that would be the case for NA but not EU, who knows.

That was the case at the time of my playing siege. People refused to play siege because of some fear that they'd "unlearn" how to fight/block/whatever

Problem with that perception is that siege and battle teach different things; Siege teaches us how to brawl and how to fight on castle walls etc. It's great Strategus practice if you kind of think about it. I never really worried about the flag and focused on the combat along the walls and in the castle.

Battle tends to be a set of glorified duels where people engage in single combat until the last few people are around to overwhelm the remaining opposition. Every now and then you get some target switchers, but for the most part it's basically the duel server with the off chance of smacking someone else during said matchup.

[Xeen]

Probably has something to do with how the perception of siege as a low-skill game mode is so prolific here. Now why that would be the case for NA but not EU, who knows.

I actually meant to say that in my post.  Siege has a terrible stigma in NA.  Aside from the "OMGSKILL" mindset, people are also overly convinced of the modes imbalance.  Honestly, I don't believe anything in siege is as broken as prenerf lancercav or critical rangedmass in battle.  I've played every class to pretty great effect in siege, you just have to really know your role.  Of course people that just want to dive mindlessly into every melee mass are going to get wrecked by huddles of fatass 30 strength 60+ armor players.  It's actually kind of crazy how everyone has convinced themselves that ranged and agi is utterly useless and the second they lose a round of siege on said classes, they GTX and hate siege forever all while Adalwulf(an NA player who plays in EU with HRE) literally solos whole teams as a dedicated archer. 

Anyways, fuck siege.  Like I said, we just don't have the population or interest to get it to the different arbitrary number of players that each map requires to be balanced or fun.

[CrazyCracka420]

Get a couple more hundred active NA players in crpg and you might have a chance at repopulating siege.  But I think most people are like me and they want to play with as many people (and the best players) as possible.  And you'll only find that on the battle server. 

Besides that, the obvious problem that has plagued siege since I started crpg over 2.5 years ago is still the same problem: Unbalanced maps.  It seems like on any given map, the defenders or attackers always have a major advantage, this is likely due to the static respawn times, rather than having the respawn times dynamically change due to server population. 

Also siege has a stigma behind it, that the people who routinely play there can't hang on the battle server against all classes of players.  Strength/plate armor crutchers is the stigma that comes to mind when some people think about siege (who are going to get run down by cavalry, or easily targeted by archers due to their slow speed of movement).

I honestly think you'd fix balance issues as well as get more people in the server, if you changed it to a strategus siege type of game play.  Set the timer for 15 or 30 or 45 minutes (I really don't care what), defenders and attackers get a fixed amount of tickets they can spawn, and they have flags to defend like in strategus. 

[Ninja_Khorin]

As the late President Roslin once said: "We need to start making babies."

[Tydeus]

I honestly think you'd fix balance issues as well as get more people in the server, if you changed it to a strategus siege type of game play.  Set the timer for 15 or 30 or 45 minutes (I really don't care what), defenders and attackers get a fixed amount of tickets they can spawn, and they have flags to defend like in strategus.

I wonder how hard this would be, actually. For example, you could take the Captains Mode factions we made, add one more troop type to all of them called "engineer", and just give attackers/defenders x/y troops to spawn with with(could be multiplied by the number of players in the server at the start of the round). It seems like most of the ground work is already there for this. Would be cool to play, but I'm not sure balance would be too much better.

[BlueKnight]

"How do we repopulate NA siege?"

Unless you do it with a woman it ain't going to work...

Anyway siege is more fun than battle because there is less ranged and less cav than on battle server (at least in EU), but multi on siege is very unstable as defenders forget that it's the flag that must be defended, not walls. People always want and wanted moar exp and battle is more exp-giving mode + it has other features (your 1 life per round makes it seem more worthy + battle is more prestigious than siege).

It's funny how EU2 always has some players while NA2 remains unpopulated, even though both servers have same modes with same (correct me if I'm wrong) map rotation.

blabla...

Give exp x1.5 to siege at least. It takes years to exp anything that isn't high gen. Leveling on EU5 low lvl character is cool but once you pass lvl 20, leveling is hell boring.

It's probably not the experience issue on EU2 but maybe it'll bring some players to it and people will rediscover siege-fun -> higher amount of players on siege makes shit balanced. Also this overtime was very nice thing we had. Intense flag-fighting till the end is what siege needs (imho).

EDIT: Maybe making respawn time somehow depend on the amout of players on the server could balance the server when the population is low.

[Swaggart]

My problem with siege has always been, other than the map balance issues people brought up, is that it highly favours heavily armored strength builds. Since you don't need to worry about cavalry, nor do you have to travel far to get to the objective (especially if you're defending), and since the enemies generally come through several choke points, all you need to do is get 30 strength, grab a maul, and go to town above a ladder spamming overheads. While this is perfectly valid strategy, I don't find this fun at all. Battle mode gives you much more options for playing, and more builds are viable.

[Dexxtaa]

New suggestion. Well, kind of old, but whatever

We get battledogs in siege only.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Swaggart]

I see your Corgi and I raise you a Chihuehue

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Dexxtaa]

I see your Chihuehue and raise you a Yorkshire Terry-yay.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

(Also, these aren't my dogs. I'm playing cRPG. I'm clearly not responsible enough to handle myself, let alone a dog)