Anvil Game Studios

Poll

Does Army Siege need some adjustments?

Yes, adjust the game mode.
29 (87.9%)
No, the game mode is fine as it is.
4 (12.1%)

Total Members Voted: 33

Author Topic: The Problem with Army Siege  (Read 1396 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Haybales

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 480
  • Played Holdfast for a bit. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • 1st King's Royal Army
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Bailey
The Problem with Army Siege
« on: July 10, 2019, 04:22:16 pm »




The Problem with Army Siege on the Army Front Servers



Hey. I don't actually make posts here that often; but when I do, I like to think they're someone meaningful and speak on behalf of the public servers. I've plunged 3,000 hours of my life into this game, and most of those hours were spent on the then Army Battlefield/Army Siege servers, and now Army Front servers. I attend linebattles too, mostly public ones - but the vast majority of my time in this community has been spent in the public setting - and Siege is becoming a problem.



1. The 15-Man Balance System
There is nothing fun about playing Siege with less than say, 80 players or so. This is a gamemode that requires the attackers to outnumber the defenders; simple as. If the defenders have more people than the attackers, there is no way on god's green earth that the attackers are ever winning until last stand. In a game where you're firing 1 shot per 14 seconds - if the defenders physically have more guns than you have men, every charge will be ripped apart.

I have NEVER played a game of Army Siege that hasn't come down to this exact situation:

Attackers charge pointlessly over and over
Defenders throw themselves out of the fort/structure and waste tickets
Defenders run out of reinforcements
Attackers win by sheer repetition, or defenders win by >30 seconds.


Solution
1. Implement a stricter balance. The server currently allows for a 15 man imbalance, that's too much for siege. Make it 5, or even 3.
2. Give defenders individual tickets, instead of a shared pool. I'm sick of losing games because my team doesn't understand what the word "defend" means.
3. Make it so Army Siege only rotates into the server if the server has more than 100 people on it. Early-hours Holdfast Army Siege on Fort Schwarz is not fun.



2. Defenders not Defending
Siege would be a hell of a lot more fun; if the defenders actually defended. Has anyone reading this thread ever been part of a Siege game where at least one quarter of your team (defenders) is charging out towards the enemy? Army Siege in Holdfast has always had a backwards forumla - in which the attackers have unlimited reinforcements, and the defenders limited. Every other game ("Rush" from Battlefield 4) has a more logical ticket balance - can we adopt that?

Solution
1. Give attackers a limited amount of tickets; so they have to think about/consider their attacks - and not just charge endlessly with the goal of draining defenders reinforcements.
2. Again, give defenders individual tickets, instead of a shared pool. I'm sick of losing games because my team doesn't understand what the word "defend" means.
3. Give both teams limited amount of tickets; and inform them of it. Too many people play Army Siege as Army Battlefield right now; if you're going to have an objective based game mode in your game, give people a reason to play the objective.



3. Sappers on Defense?
Defenders are insanely more powerful than the attackers; and that's just the nature of "Siege". They already have fortifications built, established chokepoints, and walls/doors preventing the enemy advance. Why did we give them Sappers? As if the defenders weren't already powerful enough when it comes to construction detail; we now also have them building further defenses - which by the way, isn't always "fair game". I've seen ammo boxes built on ladders to prevent movement, that's not strategy - that's just abuse.

Solution
1. Remove Sappers from defenders, they shouldn't need to build defenses if they're in a damn fort.
2. Add more "Plains" maps and keep Sappers on defenders, and give them a grace period to build a load of shit to defend against the enemy.



4. Make Dedicated (LINEAR/PROGRESSIVE) Siege Maps
You can tell when a map compliments the game mode. Fort Winston makes for a really nice Conquest map; but it was released with the Conquest update. You can absolutely tell that Desert Ruins isn't meant to be a Siege map; you have two objectives literally at opposite ends of the map - and one of them is almost never even bothered with. If you want to have Army Siege, make some dedicated and perhaps linear maps.

Siege would be a lot more fun if the maps were linear; and not just obvious random flags placed on maps designed for Army Battlefield (cough Arendan River)


Battlefield's Rush gamemode would be a perfect example. A linear, thin map - with multiple layers of objectives. You don't even have to make layers; just make the map more linear, and have two objectives that compliment each other.

Solution
1. Make maps dedicated to your game modes, and don't recycle the current ones to fit the mold.



I love this game; my hours should be evident of that, but that absolutely does mean it's perfect and it doesn't mean improvements can't be made to current systems, instead of focusing all development/map editing power on future systems. Let's fix Siege, and make it more fun - because Napoleonic combat needs Sieges, but right now - this ain't it chief.



Offline Vallixx

  • Landsman
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Here to play the game. And play it right.
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Vallixx
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2019, 04:37:17 pm »
Agreed. If they implemented this siege mode as a way of learning and kind of lighting their way around, that's great. But they should realize now that it's not near as enjoyable as regular battlefields (in my opinion).

Offline Women Doctor

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Surgeon's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • Faction: French Empire
  • Nick: Women Doctor
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2019, 04:44:16 pm »
Siege in general needs changes. The attackers need a huge buffs. They have to walk for 1 minute and 30 seconds.
 
To shoot a guy with a musket that reloads in 12
 
And that guy you just shot (if you were lucky) re-spawns back in the fort in under 10

Offline Harper

  • Global Moderator
  • Master's Mate
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Epic Man
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2019, 04:46:31 pm »
Not sure about attackers having tickets but the rest seems pretty good to me

Offline Marquis de Lafayette

  • Server Administrator
  • Standing Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Faction: French Empire
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2019, 04:58:46 pm »
I definitely agree with the concept of linear/progressive maps where the defenders are forced to progressively fall back when the attackers overwhelm them or their reinforcements deplete. Fort Salettes is one of those maps that have the potential to be such a map, with the gatehouse (point A) being the first and foremost point, followed by the keep itself (point B) and lastly the basement (point C). However, the current problem is that the endgame of this map is usually just a bewildered mess due to the fact that the points can be captured through walls/floors/roofs, seeing as Fort Salettes is a layered map with multiple levels, as shown in this clip: https://streamable.com/eirfj

It'd be a much more dynamic experience for both the attackers and the defenders to successively work their way through the map, collectively capturing and fortifying different parts of the keep as the battle progresses. Lastly, it'd undoubtedly make for a far more exciting final stand for the remaining defenders who've taken care not to waste their individual tickets, rather than the point magically getting captured with no enemy in sight.

Offline Nodachi

  • Landsman
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2019, 06:01:13 pm »
I agree with the approach of Haybales.

Id add my own:

Decrease map sizes for sieges. There is alot of wasted areas no one uses.
Wave spawn for attackers and defenders.
Defenders need to be able to spawn when a point is captured, otherwise cheesing occurs.
Move spawn points of defenders away from defending points, but in the vicinity. Might even be worthwhile to disallow moving into a spawn as an opposite team member. To prevent spawn camping.
In defensive maps with stages, let the attackers bring some fire power with them. (i.e. have a river run through a map, give defenders 3-4 forts on the river side and each time a fort is captured a ship moves up the river and provides artillery support options)

Offline Sourkraut

  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • CSgt. l 21st Co.A
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2019, 06:10:21 pm »
I agree with everything but removing the sappers from defenders, instead the material ratio should always be around a third of the points the attackers get, whatever keeps the defense from exploiting them, but keeping them useful for patching breaches and last stands.

The attacker's sappers should also be able to build a tent or telegraph for a limited spawn point (10 lives or so).
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 06:26:00 pm by Sourkraut »

Offline CruelCoin

  • Landsman
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2019, 09:47:47 am »
This hits the problems with Siege on the head.

I can't tell how many times i've run up to attack this or that fort, only to be wrecked by some beyblading ninja sallying 100 metres from his supposed defensive position.

I would amend your suggestion for Issue 2 to include this: "Defenders should have a no-go zone that extends 20m from the wall of their starting position.
Straying beyond this would flash a warning, whereafter you are killed by the system if you ignore the warning."

If you cannot encourage defenders to defend, make them.

Offline lamebear808

  • Landsman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2019, 08:55:39 pm »
My own philosophy when it comes to game balancing is that it should always be practical (i.e. work within the existing game mechanics) and that it should always be responsive to the feedback from the player base.  Of course, everyone is going to have their own suggestions for how to make a game better, especially a game that players have sunk dozens, hundreds or even thousands of hours into.  But the general idea is to be receptive, adaptive, and flexible.

AGS, to be fair, has tried to be receptive, adaptive, and flexible, and I understand how difficult it can be to reconcile conflicting opinions about the state of the game while also remaining true to the original vision. 

In the case of Army Siege, there really isn't anything major I need to add to Haybales' excellent analysis and suggestions for updating. 

I would suggest smaller maps or smaller sections of maps if Siege were to be like a Battlefield-style "Rush" or "Operations" game mode. Often times on the current Siege maps, I find myself running around in wide open spaces dodging players trying to snipe me at distance.  And while there were clearly snipers during Sieges, the current maps combined with the existing gameplay mechanics discourage attackers from attacking and encourage defenders to go on the offensive, which makes absolutely no sense for a Siege game mode.

Hopefully, making the maps smaller and/or dividing the maps into "linear sections" like Haybales suggested would help make Sieges feel more like sieges and less like campy style "sniper elite" skirmishing.   

I hope that my suggestions - as well as all the suggestions already posted by Haybales and others - will help improve Army siege both for the public server as well as for the siege events that are hosted by the regiments.


Mahalo (Thank You) for reading this,  :)

Royal Guard Lamebear808
First King's Royal Army
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 08:58:53 pm by lamebear808 »

Online Haybales

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 480
  • Played Holdfast for a bit. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • 1st King's Royal Army
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Bailey
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2019, 11:31:12 pm »
Bump. 100% of respondents would like something done.

Offline Sourkraut

  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • CSgt. l 21st Co.A
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2019, 07:45:04 am »
Also, Fort Winston Army siege should replace the army battlefield layer on Army front

Offline Marku

  • Landsman
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: The Problem with Army Siege
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2020, 12:57:55 pm »
i agree its pretty broken as it is right now