NA Siege Solution

[Alaire]

#1 Change the x1 to x1.5 just like that peasant EU server.  Could help! (already done once, just copy code?) probably could help bc, then the defenders on x1 would have more incentive to stay after they lose the round.

#2 Bring back ladders. Sure, why not, added bonus when more people.

#3 Lower weapon break %. <-- (Would be nice, but probably wouldn't happen, would realistically take a while/a good amount of effort to change(codewise))

#4 Put equipment boxes in all siege maps. <-- People with throwing may constantly spawn throwing lances/gear ^^(if this doesn't bother you then keep)

#5 Why can't NA siege players roll after knockdown? This honestly boggles my mind. (Yes!)

I feel like the numbers are just too few for NA siege to come to a constant state of activity. Sure, there are clans like Kutt, HG, Acre, Remnant, ect who enjoy playing siege occasionally, but there is not the constant player base which allows for siege to have at least eight players continually. Unless there's an influx of about twenty siege players, or some alternative incentive to play siege(while enjoying it) it probably may not come back to the active state for a while.

Bursts do occur, occasionally with changes(the beta test with spawnpoints ect.) or (i.e. kutt coming back and starting up siege again)and that revives siege for a while, but interest dies out due to seemingly lack of enjoyment on the severs.

Who knows though maybe with the start of strat again or if there is an extra 1.5x exp boost people will start playing again.
+1 if I could, but I currently can't on any post for some reason or another.

[Hirlok]

#9 Switch of the DTV leeching station already, 10-20 players wasted who could help being cannon fodder on NA1 or NA2. ....   


(((seriously, not enough players for 3-4 game modes any more...)))

[Little Lord Lollipop]

The problems with repairs on siege are due to the low player count which means you get stuck on a x1.  This problem could be offset by reducing the number of players needed for multipliers and removing the "unfair teams" penalty.

[Jona]

The problems with repairs on siege are due to the low player count which means you get stuck on a x1.  This problem could be offset by reducing the number of players needed for multipliers and removing the "unfair teams" penalty.

The unfair teams is by far the biggest plague preventing us from getting multis. Once we finally get 4v4 or more, no one wants to stay since even the winning team can't get a multi. If it is 4v5, teams are considered unfair... 4v5 HAS to happen at some point, so it is kinda BS that we should all suffer for that. Even times when the teams are balanced (number-wise at least) no multis are awarded. The problem is really that this just simply happens so often, as well. I really wish I knew what made the server think teams are unfair when its 12v13 or something... whoop-de-doo, one team has one more player. Even worse are the times when it is 10v10 and it is still considered unfair teams (did one team get more points or something? Yeah, that is siege for yah... defenders generally get more points... deal with it you stupid balancer!)

[Tydeus]

The funny thing about people mentioning how in battle you can "roll x5 for hours" is that they seem to neglect that in order for there to be a team that wins over and over, there has to also be a team that LOSES OVER AND OVER.

The balance may be bad, but under a perfectly balanced system, you'd only have a x1.5 multi. Now remember how one sided maps can often be in siege, favoring either attackers or defenders, and then realize that you frequently get switched from team to team much more often on siege, resulting in streaks being harder to sustain. Finally, consider that for every round you spend with a x5, you have to spend an extra 3 rounds at a x1, to maintain even a 2.0 average multi. So having a x5 for even two rounds in a row(ignoring the rounds where you had to play to reach the x5), means you must have a x1 for 6 rounds before obtaining your next x3, to maintain just a 2.0 average multi per round.

So you win all the rounds in one map, and then get lucky and win the rounds in the next map, assuming they were all shutouts. This means you just won at least 8 times in a row, or spent 4 rounds with a x5 multi. Now, including the multis you had before reaching x5, you would have to lose 14 rounds in a row to have only a 2.0 average multi. Just do some basic averaging, win streaks are better for pretty much everyone.

(click to show/hide)

Before anyone gets any crazy ideas, this is simply to show that siege does in fact, give reduced xp and gold in comparison to battle.

[Elindor]

Honestly Tydeus, my complaints about the balancer (for both siege and battle) are not related to the unfortunate x1 streaks that sometimes happen when one team is stacked, but instead my complaints would be about the poor player experience that results from it.  If someone were to attempt to improve the balancer system my vote would be to put an emphasis on balancing for skill and effectiveness of players on each team, not necessarily balancing for consistency of multiplier.  Now, those may be interchangeable and they may not...but yeah, to me its a balanced player experience that is important to me - good, honest, balanced fights (as opposed to steamrolls).

[dreadnok]

I played my first 8 or so gens playing siege only back when it was packed all the time (RIP na_community/ats/whatever server). I prefer battle now because the multiplier is more consistent (less team balance) and the siege map rotation is utterly fucked in terms of balance. In most maps attackers are way OP.

Shut up billy

[Phew]

As someone with something ridiculous like 4000 hours logged on NA siege, here are my thoughts:

1. DTV has murdered NA2 population, because it's at least twice the gold/XP per hour. But the siege players that play DTV mostly hate DTV, and only play it because it's populated and good XP. My proposed solution? Restrict DTV to < lvl 31, so people can use it to learn cRPG and grind through peasanthood, but not farm their high level characters.

2. It's really hard to populate NA2; no one wants to be stuck on x1 while waiting for 8 players to arrive. My proposed solution? Eliminate repairs while the population is <8.

3. The multiplier+valor system is a poor match for siege, but I get the feeling Tydeus is working on changing it (based on that "offset" debug text). Right now, the best strategy when you end up on a doomed team (i.e. the wrong team on a map that heavily favors offense or defense), is to just ignore the flag and fight on the walls for relatively easy valor (your teammates sitting idle at the flag actually bring down the average points, helping you get valor). It's pretty dumb that you get rewarded for ignoring the objectives. 

4. There are still a few maps in the rotation that are ill-suited for typical NA2 populations; Burg Rabenstein and Ridoma Castle are still in the rotation as of last night, and I assume Hailes Castle is also still in. These are maps where it takes attackers a minute or more to get to the flag, which means that when the population is low, defenders have respawned 3 or more times while attackers are still running to the flag. I'm sure these maps play great on EU with 50+ people, but with <20 people on NA2 they are snoozefests that cause most players to quit. NA2 is more suited to smaller, faster-paced maps like Himmelsberg Monastery.

Ultimately, I wish that Battle and Siege would be merged into a single Conquest server. I felt that this game mode showed amazing promise, and it's a shame the devs abandoned it before it was complete. It combined the best elements of Battle and Siege, without the worst negatives, and the beta conquest map that was on the NA2 rotation for a little while was 90% there, IMHO.

[Jona]

I'm fairly certain the offset has nothing to do with score, unfortunately, and is merely something that was forgotten to be removed after playing with ranged stagger. Offset = how far someone gets knocked back when hit by an arrow/melee strike.

[Phew]

From Tydeus:

A player's offset is found by either their previous round score gained : previous round average score gained ratio or their total score : average total score ratio, whichever is higher is used. The offset is then applied to the score you would normally gain on a hit, as a percent of the whole(125% score to 75% score). Simply put, people who perform better, are worth more.

Last night, hits on Tretter were saying ~250+ Offset, while hits on peasants were <100 Offset. Indicates that they are working on a difficulty-based score system. Whether this will supplant or supplement the multi/valor system remains to be seen.

[Jona]

Huh... I only assumed it had to do with knockback/stagger since that was recently tweaked/removed, and the one time I got huge offset I happened to hit a guy off a ledge.

[CrazyCracka420]

The funny thing about people mentioning how in battle you can "roll x5 for hours" is that they seem to neglect that in order for there to be a team that wins over and over, there has to also be a team that LOSES OVER AND OVER.

I missed that. from months ago (the same day my son was born, so forgive me )

No that's not true.  The first round of every map is a hodge podge of mixed teams.  Factions are split on the first map.  So I could be lucky and go on team 1 but a faction member could be on team 2.  One of us may keep x5 rolling, the other may not.  Other times your team loses, but you are lucky and got valor on the round that your team loses.  So you keep your x5 rolling.  It's very rare that you do not get valor and keep x5 rolling for "hours" (exaggerating some here...).  Or very rare that your whole faction gets put on the same team on the first round of a map, and your team wins.

Also what Tydeus said is how I feel.

Maps are often one-sided in siege (either favoring attackers or defenders), and you are likely to be switched at least once a map to the other side when you're playing in siege, so it's harder to keep your multiplier rolling (whereas in battle it's not easy to keep multiplier rolling, but it's certainly easier than on siege IMO, when a map is heavily favoring attackers or defenders, and you're pretty much guaranteed to play a round on the side that is at a heavy disadvantage).   

The reason siege is lower population is because it's a worse xp/gold gain than battle (for above reasons).  It was obvious for me from about day 10 of playing crpg.  And then add to that I just don't like the game mode as much (I like the "counter-strike" round based system where you only get one life per round...use it wisely) vs essentially team death match style for siege, and you can see pretty easily why battle is the more favored game mode, and why siege is always lower population. 

[Elindor]

Congrats about your son!

Here's a curious question - why is siege much more popular in EU than in NA?
In EU it rivals if not surpasses battle's population much of the time...always wondered why the appeal is greater there.

Also, good suggestions Phew.

[Phew]

Here's a curious question - why is siege much more popular in EU than in NA?
In EU it rivals if not surpasses battle's population much of the time...always wondered why the appeal is greater there.

I think it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. No one likes low population siege, but populated siege is very fun. On the rare occasions when NA2 has >30 players, it quickly approaches 50 players, because people think "whoah, siege is populated, let's go". But no one wants to log on when it has 10 players to help it get to 30.

If EU just has like 10-15 more "siege regulars" than NA, that's enough to get it past that "fun threshold" of ~30 that draws battle players in.

[HappyPhantom]

As someone with something ridiculous like 4000 hours logged on NA siege, here are my thoughts:

1. DTV has murdered NA2 population, because it's at least twice the gold/XP per hour. But the siege players that play DTV mostly hate DTV, and only play it because it's populated and good XP. My proposed solution? Restrict DTV to < lvl 31, so people can use it to learn cRPG and grind through peasanthood, but not farm their high level characters.

I'm hoping the upside of the destruction and total removal of fun from DTV is that Siege become more populated. I can dream.