Uh-duh, to siege fodder: We shall vote!

MMOCowboy

Trainee

Posts: 72

1

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 4:15am

Make siege weapons the exclusive damage for gates?

A total of 45 Votes have been submitted.

60%

Yes, only siege weapons should be able to damage gates/siege weapons (27)

40%

No, don't change it (18)

Ok, so, this has been suggested before, now I'm putting it to a vote.

My experience for the night:
I log in, grab my house pots, grab my buffs, join siege. It takes about 30 seconds for siege to load for me...

In the 1 minute and 30 seconds after siege started our opposing guild had already destroyed a gate and our proccessing factory.

Um yea, enough of this pay-to-win loserfest. Siege is SIEGE.

Proposed change:
Players cannot harm nor heal gates
Players cannot harm nor heal siege weapons
Siege weapons can harm or heal gates
Siege weapons can harm or heal siege weapons

And suddenly the world makes sense again... (beta)

LOL...

Quoted from "turboreaper666;443339"

Here you go little angry troll....

My new favorite GM

Quoted from "Asteria;438081"

Really...

Hey look over there!

/closed.

Who says "you don't matter" better? :p

Quoted from "Kalvan;480948"

I'm always sorry when a player leaves our game, but making a forum announcement about it is...pointless.
/closed

Go to the top of the page

Silenteye7

Professional

Posts: 688

2

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 5:34am

you need to stop making polls, you have a tendency to make them completely bias. Where's the option of decreasing gate/siege weapon vulnerability to player attacks? Or scaling of defenses/npcs to match the current level cap?

Go to the top of the page

Kefkai

Professional

Posts: 907

Location: Pulling my own puppet strings

Occupation: Jerk

3

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 7:02am

I oppose your rationale, at times though I feel like they should take out bleeds in siege in general.

I'm not too firm that that would be a great solution though, and would certainly hurt certain classes.

Go to the top of the page

Liafien

Master

Posts: 2,951

Location: USA

4

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 7:28am

While i agree that a gate "bleeding" to death doesn't really make much sense, what does in this game? It's a FANTASY game.

I could see taking out bleeds, but just bluntly hitting it? Think about it, you hack at a gate long enough with a big huge sword it's gonna get damaged.

Borella - 100 W/M/S/R/P/K

VVV

Videos

If you play P/K in instances you're garbage

Go to the top of the page

refugee

Intermediate

Posts: 585

5

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 8:04am

Quoted from "Silenteye7;494735"

you need to stop making polls, you have a tendency to make them completely bias. Where's the option of decreasing gate/siege weapon vulnerability to player attacks? Or scaling of defenses/npcs to match the current level cap?

Agreed.

As to the original question, they should be harder to take down. As it is, one well equipped player can take a gate down in less than a minute, yet a whole crew of low levels can't take it down at all.
A very common tactic is to have a rogue scout sneak back and shoot vamp arrows.
Setting them up so you required siege engines would make siege more equal for all levels and classes.
On player should not be able to take them down

Go to the top of the page

MMOCowboy

Trainee

Posts: 72

6

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 11:25am

Quoted from "Silenteye7;494735"

you need to stop making polls, you have a tendency to make them completely bias. Where's the option of decreasing gate/siege weapon vulnerability to player attacks? Or scaling of defenses/npcs to match the current level cap?

Your biased disagreement only shows you lack of decisiveness. It's easy enough to decide one way or the other.

This isn't about what some might think is the be solution or not. It's about what's the best solution for all.

Biased options would leave the situation in the same place (like taking the bleed effect away... that just changes who's burning the gates the first 2 minutes in).

I'm sure many of you know this but I'll point it out anyways. Since this hideous imbalance in siege, end game guilds have done away with pointless structures like the arsenal and added second or even third processing factories. The fact this was done by a single guild shows how ridiculous the situation has grown.

No, a ******** solution will not fix this. The options were explicit because they were meant to be explicit. If you want a ******** vote, that benefits nobody but yoursel, feel free to start your own.

LOL...

Quoted from "turboreaper666;443339"

Here you go little angry troll....

My new favorite GM

Quoted from "Asteria;438081"

Really...

Hey look over there!

/closed.

Who says "you don't matter" better? :p

Quoted from "Kalvan;480948"

I'm always sorry when a player leaves our game, but making a forum announcement about it is...pointless.
/closed

Go to the top of the page

Silenteye7

Professional

Posts: 688

7

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 12:05pm

Many a castle throughout history were sacked before the creation of siege weapons. Do I think they need to be scaled to a more appropriate attack/defense, yes... do I think that gates need to be scaled to provide less vulnerability to single player attacks, yes.... do I think that ONLY siege weapons should be able to damage the gates, no... and finally, do I think that things need to stay the same way they currently are, no.

Your logic is phallic because you opted for an ultimatum.... "agree with me, or you don't want things to change." When you provide more diverse solutions, then I will consider selecting an option in your poll, until then you're just behaving like Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory; your way or no way.

Go to the top of the page

MMOCowboy

Trainee

Posts: 72

8

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 12:14pm

Quoted from "Silenteye7;494781"

Many a castle throughout history were sacked before the creation of siege weapons. Do I think they need to be scaled to a more appropriate attack/defense, yes... do I think that gates need to be scaled to provide less vulnerability to single player attacks, yes.... do I think that ONLY siege weapons should be able to damage the gates, no... and finally, do I think that things need to stay the same way they currently are, no.

Your logic is phallic because you opted for an ultimatum.... "agree with me, or you don't want things to change." When you provide more diverse solutions, then I will consider selecting an option in your poll, until then you're just behaving like Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory; your way or no way.

Fail. Read the post above if you want reason. I made it short so even you could understand it. Of course, that doesn't mean you're actually going to read, comprehend, and consider its validity.

Believe it or not, yes and no aren't incredibly uncommon options in polls. If you aren't a minor and have actually participated in real life polls, you might know this...

LOL...

Quoted from "turboreaper666;443339"

Here you go little angry troll....

My new favorite GM

Quoted from "Asteria;438081"

Really...

Hey look over there!

/closed.

Who says "you don't matter" better? :p

Quoted from "Kalvan;480948"

I'm always sorry when a player leaves our game, but making a forum announcement about it is...pointless.
/closed

Go to the top of the page

CharlieBananas

AGGROPIT

Posts: 779

Location: USA

Occupation: Student

9

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 1:27pm

Quoted from "MMOCowboy;494784"

Believe it or not, yes and no aren't incredibly uncommon options in polls.

Believe it or not, not every problem is solved by a simple yes or no question.

Go to the top of the page

turboreaper666

Intermediate

Posts: 197

Location: Canada

10

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 2:16pm

I agree with 2 pars of this thread.

1. Yes, the gates should only be attacked by the Siege Vehicles. I think it's one of the few ways to accomplish a fairness for all, by level and by class. As the players power increases so does the rate at which the gates and buildings can be destroyed. I am for this because it is not a nerf to any classes, combo's or players. It leaves the actual players class build alone yet allows a better FAIR challenge to each team, and brings back the part of Siege that has been lost in most cases "Strategy"

2. Imo, the forums have covered many many man many many Siege issues and been debated into infinity. There has been many calls for adjustments and fixes. The problem is most Siege related threads try to solve ALL the problems that siege has in a single thread, and sit on the verge of rambling. To take single, simple Siege issue and make it a focal point might produce some better results. When/If something is done in comes the next issue which should be related to the increasing the Defense of players when entering siege.

Shadowlaw
Retired 07/2012

Go to the top of the page

ycavan

Professional

Posts: 1,205

11

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 3:24pm

This reminds me of an older rpg .. Rift(s)? NOT the current mmo. lol

basically, it used an implementation of GURPS - Generic Universal Role-Playing System that had 3 "levels" of hp: hp, structure and mega structure

people have, generally, the same # of hp... it's your life, if you will. whenever you took hp damage, you suffered maladies -- blindness, fatigue, etc...

structure was your "toughness" value. after an hour or so of rest, all your structure returned to you. so, a boxer would work on building up his structure so he could take hits and not worry too much about magic; while a mage would forgo structure training for magic training and build up magic attack/defenses.

inanimate objects also had structure, but they have no "life" so when the structure was depleted, they broke. tables, chairs and whatnot...

MEGA STRUCTURES were massive things like a dragon or a castle gate. *ding ding* Mega structures could ONLY be affected by mega damage dealing devices. 1 mega damage was the equivalent of 1000 damage ( can't remember the exact value ); but 1000 damage != 1 Mega Damage. Mega structures did not have hp values either, if living things had MS, that was their total hp.

ie, a baby dragon would have 1-2 MS... the equivalent of 1000-2000 hp. A dragonlance would deal 1 MD to dragons, so someone w/ a dragonlance could kill a baby dragon in 1-2 hits; but someone that could deal 20k raw damage wouldn't scratch the dragon.

now, how would this tie into RoM? Make siege weapons mega weapons that deal 1+ MD to gates based on how many people were working the weapon and gates mega structures that have MS values based on the castle improvement levels.

ie, catapults would do whatever damage to toons; but would definitely mess up gates while no toon could damage a gate.

on the other hand, there should be gate repair systems that have to be manned in order to repair the gates since healers could not heal the gates.

Go to the top of the page

KatalanOrk

Intermediate

Posts: 563

Location: Nijmegen, The Netherlands

12

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 3:43pm

Not that is it particularly important but the poll is poorly worded. The options are not genuine yes/no options. They are the obvious yes/no options of two different questions.

1. do you think that Siege is fine as it is?
2. do you think this change should be implemented?

The wording is poorly chosen either through ineptitude, or to make a yes vote more appealing to those that really think another solution would be better.

Either way it does completely invalidate the results of the poll, if they were actually ever to be taken as important. Which of course it isn't, so it will be interesting to see how many people like the idea, though it is not scientific in design or execution.

Go to the top of the page

deus69xxx

Trainee

Posts: 112

Location: oregon

13

Sunday, December 18th 2011, 11:13pm

<--- still thinks gates should be immune, siege engines gain the HP of the gates and their damage reduction.

then we go into the player vs player adjustments, the LoS issues with the crystal towers and grass, how beefy and % based the crystal guards should be...

Go to the top of the page

Borella

Master

Posts: 2,951

Location: USA

14

Monday, December 19th 2011, 1:59am

Quoted from "deus69xxx;494885"

<--- still thinks gates should be immune, siege engines gain the HP of the gates and their damage reduction.

then we go into the player vs player adjustments, the LoS issues with the crystal towers and grass, how beefy and % based the crystal guards should be...

Agreed.

Borella - 100 W/M/S/R/P/K

VVV

Videos

If you play P/K in instances you're garbage

Go to the top of the page

MMOCowboy

Trainee

Posts: 72

15

Monday, December 19th 2011, 4:06am

Quoted from "KatalanOrk;494803"

Not that is it particularly important but the poll is poorly worded. The options are not genuine yes/no options. They are the obvious yes/no options of two different questions.

1. do you think that Siege is fine as it is?
2. do you think this change should be implemented?

The wording is poorly chosen either through ineptitude, or to make a yes vote more appealing to those that really think another solution would be better.

Either way it does completely invalidate the results of the poll, if they were actually ever to be taken as important. Which of course it isn't, so it will be interesting to see how many people like the idea, though it is not scientific in design or execution.

I wouldn't expect forum trolls to vote for this. That's why I can't take anything you or Silenteye post seriously. Your only purpose is to confuse the otherwise exhausted readers with misdirection. "No, don't change it" doesn't mean it's fine as it is. It means don't make the change.

As for it not being important, anyone who read the reason behind the poll in the first post would know it most obviously is important. At the same time I am not convinced those who support troll logic deserve a fair game.

This poll was scheduled to close in 7 days. If it sinks with the trolls, so be it. It wouldn't be the first fix I've offered to die to the lame misdirection, lies, and furious flames of trolls. As far as I'm concerned, if players don't support it, they deserve to be stuck with it. Which of course means they will inevitably suffer the harm of their same hatful decision in due time.

LOL...

Quoted from "turboreaper666;443339"

Here you go little angry troll....

My new favorite GM

Quoted from "Asteria;438081"

Really...

Hey look over there!

/closed.

Who says "you don't matter" better? :p

Quoted from "Kalvan;480948"

I'm always sorry when a player leaves our game, but making a forum announcement about it is...pointless.
/closed

Go to the top of the page

trav42073

Professional

Posts: 806

Location: Arizona

Occupation: welder/fabricator/antagonist

16

Monday, December 19th 2011, 4:57am

first off, Umadbro? look, being on pvp server has given me lots of perspective to pvp mentality. u either pay to win, plan to win or,lose. period. if ur guild is unable to hold opposing guilds off for even the first 5 mins, well, recruit recruit recruit. or, pay pay pay. such is siege. and i agree with silent, u always come up with these one sided polls that no matter what make u look like a hero. well, a hero would have not given up after 15 minutes and came to the forums to qq.

yes, siege needs to be scaled with the power of current lvl cap, that in and of itself would fix a lot, but for this one hour a day, p2w rules. unless u have excellent, tight teamwork or super strategy. even then it is a serious struggle to beat an op guild. but it is possible. come to indigo, we will school you. i dont see any changes to siege in the forseeable future to make it more easy for, well, you i guess. its a challenge and with that,

If you cant run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

95r/62m/63s/ Soultwist.
Ryaderr wrd/s/w erobos

Go to the top of the page

MMOCowboy

Trainee

Posts: 72

17

Monday, December 19th 2011, 5:09am

Quoted from "trav42073;494953"

first off, Umadbro? look, being on pvp server has given me lots of perspective to pvp mentality. u either pay to win, plan to win or,lose. period. if ur guild is unable to hold opposing guilds off for even the first 5 mins, well, recruit recruit recruit. or, pay pay pay. such is siege. and i agree with silent, u always come up with these one sided polls that no matter what make u look like a hero. well, a hero would have not given up after 15 minutes and came to the forums to qq.

yes, siege needs to be scaled with the power of current lvl cap, that in and of itself would fix a lot, but for this one hour a day, p2w rules. unless u have excellent, tight teamwork or super strategy. even then it is a serious struggle to beat an op guild. but it is possible. come to indigo, we will school you. i dont see any changes to siege in the forseeable future to make it more easy for, well, you i guess. its a challenge and with that,

If you cant run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

And who said my guild wasn't one of the burners? Like I said, flame away. You'll be burned by your own words one day.

LOL...

Quoted from "turboreaper666;443339"

Here you go little angry troll....

My new favorite GM

Quoted from "Asteria;438081"

Really...

Hey look over there!

/closed.

Who says "you don't matter" better? :p

Quoted from "Kalvan;480948"

I'm always sorry when a player leaves our game, but making a forum announcement about it is...pointless.
/closed

Go to the top of the page

Borella

Master

Posts: 2,951

Location: USA

18

Monday, December 19th 2011, 5:32am

Quoted from "MMOCowboy;494956"

And who said my guild wasn't one of the burners? Like I said, flame away. You'll be burned by your own words one day.

So, if people don't agree with you that makes them flamers?

Nice logic, bro.

Borella - 100 W/M/S/R/P/K

VVV

Videos

If you play P/K in instances you're garbage

Go to the top of the page

Silenteye7

Professional

Posts: 688

19

Monday, December 19th 2011, 6:06am

Quoted from "MMOCowboy;494939"

Your only purpose is to confuse the otherwise exhausted readers with misdirection. "No, don't change it" doesn't mean it's fine as it is. It means don't make the change.

Then why doesn't it say something like, "I do not agree with this suggestion."? The way you worded makes it sound like by selecting the "no" option, you don't want the system to change period.

Personally I think you just need to add the option, "I think your suggestion is stupid as hell and if I ever catch you out on my PvP server, I'm gonna camp you till you rage quit."

Go to the top of the page

KatalanOrk

Intermediate

Posts: 563

Location: Nijmegen, The Netherlands

20

Monday, December 19th 2011, 8:35am

Hardly seems worth the effort to answer, but fyi, I voted in favour of your suggestion. I don't really know if it would be the best solution but it appeals to me for realism where opposing teams would be trying to protect/destroy Siege Engines rather than the gates themselves.

The point I was trying to make is that say for the question do you want a Border Collie puppy for Christmas, the negative answer to that question is not, no I don't want a puppy at all, but no I don't want a Border Collie puppy.

And as I pointed out, either this was unintentional or it was an attempt to polarise opinions. Only you could answer that, Cowboy, if that is your real name.

Go to the top of the page

Runes of Magic US / AU