Why do people play Battle so much?

[rustyspoon]

1. Generally the more skilled players play battle. I'd rather play against people who are better than me.
2. You can contribute more in battle. In battle, taking out a few players makes a HUGE difference.
3. Tactics are far more important in battle. In battle, you need to work together to fight off cav, to group up to take out specific threats and to advance towards archers. In siege you either camp the flag, or camp the gates, or camp the whatever while the other team tries to kill the people there.
4. The fact that you can die makes everything you do far more important. I find if I play too much siege I get really sloppy, because who gives a shit if you die?

[Dezilagel]

Yh, battle mode really makes you care more, and I would not see the afk times as something bad, it's probably what keeps the forums active (and also probably why the playerbase are not all singles...)

 

Also, as stated before, battle is the way to earn prestige. Getting spectated while pwning is what gets good new players into clans, and is also a driving force for personal skill progression (as getting recognized as a lamer will not net you anything, and I will not deny it, 100 ppl witnessing you pwning nets a great deal of satisfaction^^).

That is just imho. Sure siege can be fun for the fast-paced action, but to me, battle is king.

(click to show/hide)

Srsly, who gives a fuck about multiplier? MY skill progression as a player is what drives me atleast, not the fact that in two week I may have a pair of shiny virtual boots...

[Varric]

Because it's awesome to play with your friends in a group, winning the round together and knowing you made a difference to get another multiplier !

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Peasant_Woman]

I play both battle and seige, probably more battle overall. I play seige when I want to not wait four minutes after my death to play again, fast instant action. I play battle when I want to fight better players/get shot to shit by archers while fighting better players, improving my personal skill.

[Kafein]

Because it's awesome to play with your friends in a group, winning the round together and knowing you made a difference to get another multiplier !

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

It's also so cool to get raped together (sadly I don't have any screenshot of that epic 23:1 score on my pikeman, mostly consisting of poor VRN on the bridge map). Tbh we got wiped by Fallen archers a little after on a village map.

[okiN]

Haha, that bridge map was pretty terrible. All the archers were on the other team so there was pretty much no way to win; half the team was already dead each round before the Varangians could close for melee, so of course we got ganked by the ranged/pike combo.

Varric's picture is from last night, though. Managed to get x5 for a full four maps with the VRN stack and good support from the team, made 800k XP in one sitting.

[Gorath]

Because the siege server lags like fucking crazy.  Really that's it.

[Punisher]

Siege with randoms is just a pain, every time I play it I end up raging when my teammates would rather fight on the walls then attack/defend the flag. In battle on the other hand, even if your team is composed of random people you can make a much bigger difference then in siege.

[Kafein]

Haha, that bridge map was pretty terrible. All the archers were on the other team so there was pretty much no way to win; half the team was already dead each round before the Varangians could close for melee, so of course we got ganked by the ranged/pike combo.

Varric's picture is from last night, though. Managed to get x5 for a full four maps with the VRN stack and good support from the team, made 800k XP in one sitting.

Yeah, when we directed the archer fire to the boats, there were like 15 archers on the bridge, with just enough space to shoot. The melee fight was quite easy with that kind of support.

But I sincerely think the pikes are going to be increasingly popular in the coming weeks and months. They are formidable anticav weapons, but also can defend themselves very well in clusterfucks, especially in shield+pike combos. I already see much more long spears than a few weeks ago, and pikes are slowly becoming more common too.

I think I never made it to 3 complete maps in x5. I always end up in the first round losing team after a while 

In the end, the battle mode is epic for it's intensity and feel of a real battle with real incentives and risks.

[Wanderer8]

Reread OP's post and view it as a rage against archers and the entire post will make complete sense. It has nothing to do with Battle games.

[MrShine]

Siege with randoms is just a pain, every time I play it I end up raging when my teammates would rather fight on the walls then attack/defend the flag. In battle on the other hand, even if your team is composed of random people you can make a much bigger difference then in siege.

^
At any given moment in siege 10% of the team is actually paying attention to the objectives while the remainder is farting around on a wall somewhere. 

[Dexxtaa]

Battle is balls, but produces better warriors.

Siege is a melee spamfest with close quarters combat, produces fighters that are more aware of their surroundings.

Conquest would be amazing in my opinion. The best of both worlds.

Strategus will be like siege. Better ramp up that awareness, guys.

[The_Bloody_Nine]

^
At any given moment in siege 10% of the team is actually paying attention to the objectives while the remainder is farting around on a wall somewhere.

yeah, and even less people than in battle are responding if you suggest some tactic or something more than the occassional "flaaag"...

[Erathsmus]

Big fan of siege here, but mostly because there is no cav. Used to be a big battle fan, but when I tried siege for the first time, it was heavenly not having HAs, Cavaliers XD, or respawn times. Both modes require a certain amount of tactics, the problem with siege mode and brains, is when very good players resort to the scoreboard, as opposed to objectives (like flags, gatehouses, etc). Personally, I think siege is MUCH more difficult to tailor the match with a group of freinds (unless you have 5 huscarl shielders). A nice part about battle mode though, is being able to go make some food if you die early [ :.

 In siege, you are in motion 24/7. Attacking consists of: suicidal people charging up a ramp, while smart players find a secret entrance and open a door for them, if the doors stay open, attackers win. Defending consists of: 1/4 players are dead yelling FALG LAFG FLAG! 1/4 doing useful things, 2/4 fighting on walls.

My experience in battle has been: Bah, freakin cav killed me. GAH, I hate xbows! OUCH, well atleast it was thier best player. Sometimes you get that amazing 6 kill streak in 10 seconds, but a large amount of my deaths in battle consist of "now where the hell did that come from?" Which makes me sad until I respawn.

Also, siege is more freindly for lighter armored players imo...less focus fire. In battle you better be neo if you are not wearing some shiny stuff (or have a shield).

[Socrates]

I like battle, because since you only have one chance it actually is intense. Also the teamwork that ensues with clanmates and stuff it always funny. I wish we had Conquest. Make a map into a BF-style map and huge it would be gold.