Which mode do you prefer?

[Belhade]

I prefer Siege (NA) for the same reasons; respawns and fighting opportunities. I dislike Battle for the same reasons, too: as a 2H I am vulnerable to both archers and cavalry (though I learned to half-hand my swords to stab at the horsies). I also feel more like I'm doing something in Siege mode (protect the gatehouse/block the stairs/open the door/camp the flag, etc) instead of running around somewhat aimlessly until the last runaway archers are dealt with. But it's probably just due to still being pretty new (about three months cRPG out of six total Warband) or just bad in general.

[Joseph]

Why is 75% of the NA population obsessed with siege. It's a terrible mode for crpg IMO (great for strategus). I'd love to get some 80+ battles going but the only way to do that is on the EU server with a high ping. It seems like EU is the polar opposite. Nearly all EU players like battle mode. What gives NA bretheren? I personally enjoy battle way more than siege.

75 % of the NA population ?
 

Numbers are same.

[Oggrinsky]

I only played siege when I was working overnight shifts and it was the only high pop server at 5am. Now that I'm done with that schedule though siege feels like chopping wood. Also, everytime I have to read GG SPOOK FANS on the chat log I get the irresistible urge to hit alt-x and then go torture puppies. Battle all the way.

[Malaclypse]

Man EU has a huge voter turnout compared to NA. Or a lot of non EU players saying they are, I guess.

[okiN]

Nah, there's just more of us.

[Rannepear]

Yea, that, and I'm pretty sure more EU players frequent the forums compared to NA players.

[Digglez]

NA - battle all the way.

Battle is much more dynamic, teamwork is much more important (camping a flag is not teamwork), and individual skill matters so much more. I just find siege to be terribly boring. You either camp the flag, camp a ladder, camp a ramp or just charge forward over and over and over again.

Siege player here.

Wrong on all accounts.  Sorry but Team deathmatch has not a viable multiplayer mode since the late 90's.  Battle tends to be a clusterfuck of stupidity of each person wandering off on their own to die.  The only strategy is stay together in a huge zerg swarm or find some defendable camp location.  I see much more teamwork in Siege to accomplish a goal, that doesnt include STAYING ALIVE AT ALL COSTS.....AKA DELAYING or breaking clearly stated server rules and starting 1v1 duels when its 1 guy vs 5 enemies remaining.

Battle has devolved into who has the most archers or cav and who can get to the best camping spots first.  Its way more frustrating than say losing a siege map as defender dying in the last 30 seconds.  Battle is all about epeen since it tracks your KDR, whereas siege players are willing to take a death in order to accomplish something for their team.

[Elerion]

Wrong on all accounts.  Sorry but Team deathmatch has not a viable multiplayer mode since the late 90's.

That's because at some point in between, shooters stopped including high powered pick-ups to promote map movement, and slowed down movement significantly. If you tried to camp in Quake TDM you'd be repeatedly torn apart by a Quad/Mega stacked team whizzing past your location spamming you with explosives, then bouncing away before you could shoot back.

In modern "realistic"/console style shooters, there's no incentive to move around the map to pick up supplies, and movement is so slow a geriatric grandmother could fire at you before you can move back into cover.

So you're right, it wouldn't work in cRPG without adding some incentive to moving around.

[McCart]

EU (Hungary ) , siege +1
battle is so pointless .. just a gaycher fest.


Wookis melee monday battles were cool.