Why do people play Battle so much?

[Duerkos]

What I don't like about siege is that lots of maps are unbalanced. In battle it happens sometimes, but in siege the map is more important.

I loved when EU_CRPG2 (i think it was this server) had only "open field battle maps" for the siege mode.

[Mithlodir]

In my opinion, one of the reasons that siege is seen as lacking any sort of tactics, has more to do with what people use it for than the mode itself.
As i've read time and time again now it is apparently nothing more than a rambo playground for people, which actually explains why i constantly find 2handers and archers rushing infront of me on the ladders (myes i'm a turtle).

*shrug* just my 2 copper

[Riddaren]

1. The maps are all the same (only siege maps), thus only suited for infantry.
2. In siege you respawn much more often which means you will spend way more time on transporting yourself to the enemy, which imo is the most boring part of the game.
3. The fast respawning also causes people to act more dumb: Less teamplay. Less awareness. More carelessness.
4. The objective (flag) is located at the same place on every round and map which makes it very repetetive (in battle mode flags appear at random location AFTER battles at locations on the map).
5. You get less XP/gold and can't affect the outcome of the rounds as easily as in battle mode.
6. Less people play siege meaning you have less servers to choose from if you want to play it.

Because of this I see very few reasons to play siege instead of battle. Specially as cavalry.
But I have to admit I have enjoyed playing siege as a lancer (horse + lance) a few times. But the way I got my 50/5 k:d was by spawnkilling unaware players...
But I'm also sure that kind of play is not really welcome so I've stopped with it.

The only times I play siege nowadays is when I join a siege server by mistake

[Ozwan]

Whew. Lot of reponses.

Some sort of a "Hold 3 points to win" mode might be a good idea

Exactly, objective based gameplay would be much better. Of course it cant involve no respawns because it would lead to the same boring camping as it is right now.

siege without respawns?

We had this before when battle server loaded siege maps for some reason. Utter crap. ;)

Stakes are higher in battle, that's why its more fun and rewarding. You know your enemy has to wait a few minutes before respawn when you kill him.. Loosing your x5 feels like a real loss etc, and strategies may work. You also face overall better players in battle, at least on EU.

Well, first of all capturing a castle seems pretty high stakes for me, far more than just killing a few guys. Secondly, not much beats holding the last square with the flag with just a couple of guys counting every second on the timer. ;)

People are generally more skilled in battle, there is WAY less teamwounding. It is also more exciting because you don't want to die.

Here I have to agree, sieges are really high in the department teamwounding, at least on 22nd siege its set to 50% reflective IIRC, it helps a bit.

Reread OP's post and view it as a rage against archers and the entire post will make complete sense.

Can't say its completely not true because archers and generally ranged combat still turn this game into shit most of the time and ruin melee combat players fun. Its more annoying in battle mode because of wasted time.

tactics (...) like camp the hill, camp the spawn, shieldwall and zerg rush, left and right.

Yeah.

And the most important thing about battle to many players. The scoreboard.

Exactly the TDM mentality.

[chadz]

Battle requires less teamwork than siege.

If you kill someone in battle, he stays dead. You just helped your team, no matter where, how and why.
In siege, killing someone has no value in itself, unless it happens at the right time in the right place.

This is also the reason why most pubbers, including me, don't play siege often - the amount of teamwork needed for the game to be REALLY funny and challenging is more or less impossible to achieve. That's why battle is better suited for pubbers.

I still hope I can pull off the most epic gamemodes of em all:
2 opposing forts, more or less a lot of land in between, capturable spawn points in between (so inf doesn't have to walk that long), buildable siege equipment, gamemode: capture the enemy base while you have to defend your base.

I will call the gamemode "Epic".

Edit: if you want to help me create a prototype map for Epic, pm me.

[Glyph]

Battle requires less teamwork than siege.

If you kill someone in battle, he stays dead. You just helped your team, no matter where, how and why.
In siege, killing someone has no value in itself, unless it happens at the right time in the right place.

This is also the reason why most pubbers, including me, don't play siege often - the amount of teamwork needed for the game to be REALLY funny and challenging is more or less impossible to achieve. That's why battle is better suited for pubbers.

I still hope I can pull off the most epic gamemodes of em all:
2 opposing forts, more or less a lot of land in between, capturable spawn points in between (so inf doesn't have to walk that long), buildable siege equipment, gamemode: capture the enemy base while you have to defend your base.

I will call the gamemode "Epic".

awsome idea +1! but then a round should last for 20 mins! even better.

[Shablagoo]

I still hope I can pull off the most epic gamemodes of em all:
2 opposing forts, more or less a lot of land in between, capturable spawn points in between (so inf doesn't have to walk that long), buildable siege equipment, gamemode: capture the enemy base while you have to defend your base.

I will call the gamemode "Epic".

Edit: if you want to help me create a prototype map for Epic, pm me.

So it's a tug of war map like cp maps in TF2?  Or can the back cap be ninjad by going around?  Can you choose your spawn point? 

[Rhygar666]

2 opposing forts, more or less a lot of land in between, capturable spawn points in between (so inf doesn't have to walk that long), buildable siege equipment, gamemode: capture the enemy base while you have to defend your base.

i like it, sounds a bit like Star Wars Battlefront, used to play it online for hours, you have several spawn points you can capture, if you captured all (or killed the enemies) the other team looses.

[v/onMega]

Hahaha...

Most ppl havent played siege with their factions it seems.
Whenever HRE gets a decent amount of players on one siege server, we can be a decisive factor. Always.

Teamplay, communication and killing the right ppl gets rewarded soooo much better in siege. You can do ~ 1.2mill / 40/50 k gold easily in 4-6 hours.

All in all siege is much more rewarding for a team playing together.

Battle is a school of awareness  against cav. / archers.

One thing is for sure, both gametypes are highly demanding when planning to get high multiplier, siege is more rewarding though.

[Vibe]

One factor that I found really disturbing in siege is getting team switched around a LOT and therefore unable to keep a high multiplier.

[Lezard]

In my opinion, one of the reasons that siege is seen as lacking any sort of tactics, has more to do with what people use it for than the mode itself.
As i've read time and time again now it is apparently nothing more than a rambo playground for people, which actually explains why i constantly find 2handers and archers rushing infront of me on the ladders (myes i'm a turtle).

*shrug* just my 2 copper

Siege doesn't lack tactics, it's simply a better playground for going rambo. If you go on a battle server and charge mindlessly into enemy lines, you will die, and you'll have to wait another 4 minutes or so for the next round. Siege is more rewarding for the rambo style due to fast respawns.

Anyway, saying less tactics/teamwork are involved in battle is just wrong. Battle is a better playground for more complicated tactics imo. Problem is, the public crowd just can't handle advanced tactics, hence why tactics usually just involves around camping one spot, with cavalry backstabbing as the big blob of infantry clashes. As a commander, I'd say battle maps are harder to command, if you do more advanced tactics than camp with shield walls that is.

Then again, I have much experience from native, so maybe my opinion is too influenced by the native compeditive scene.

[Rhygar666]

One factor that I found really disturbing in siege is getting team switched around a LOT and therefore unable to keep a high multiplier.

that happens when you play alone, if you play with a clan you all get switched and may be able to keep the multiplier, only critical factor is the first round of a new map (highest chance loosing mp, cuz not balanced yet)

[Glyph]

it was really fun on the pecores server yesterday, we polled open plains 3 times when a new game started, every team had a leader that was really commanding(don't remember any names, though there was a guard...) it was the best day i ever played c-rpg. constant shield walls, cav flanking and taking down other cav. archers behind the shield walls. and so on.

[Kenji]

it was really fun on the pecores server yesterday, we polled open plains 3 times when a new game started, every team had a leader that was really commanding(don't remember any names, though there was a guard...) it was the best day i ever played c-rpg. constant shield walls, cav flanking and taking down other cav. archers behind the shield walls. and so on.

Pecores servers are located in EU, right?

I gotta pay visits to you guys more, I'd love to be commanded and charge with brothers-in-arms like a real knight instead of some ninja poof cav.

Those things just never happen in NA battles (At least I haven't seen it happening, yet)

[Elmetiacos]

I have no preference really, but I admit some of the things I do in siege are very silly, like deliberately jumping to my death because it's faster to respawn somewhere else than to run from where I am now, or wandering about without a shield so the defenders will shoot me instead of other people who've just got to the top of the ladder...