This would be an idea that would affect how the defenders could attack the attackers. Since the idea of siege is for the defenders to commit all their resources to defending, I feel it is unrealistic that the defenders are capable of assaulting the attackers at all. Therefore, I propose an idea.
Instead of the defenders having all their base entrances blocked my team-only forcefields, I think there should be some sort of natural boundry blocking an attack. For example, the attackers would be provided with vehicles and the defenders would not. Between the bases, there would be a very wide river of lava, or, the attackers' base could be beyond a very high cliff that the defenders would have no hope of scaling.
Idea for future Siege maps
- Star offline
- Greenhorn
- Posts: 1398
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:59 pm
- Location: Minnesota
by JogeyPirate » Sun Jul 29, 2001 12:33 pm
If I played seige a lot, I'd probably say that would be a great idea, even if I wasn't paying sattention to some of it. Anyway, good idea. ^_^
--Jogey The Pirate--
"Yarrgghh, mateys!"
"Yarrgghh, mateys!"
- JogeyPirate offline
- Greenhorn
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 7:24 pm
by powdahound » Sun Jul 29, 2001 8:34 pm
- powdahound offline
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:15 pm
- Location: NH, USA
by Zoolooman » Tue Aug 14, 2001 9:55 pm
Star, I think this would be an interesting map, but I disagree about the idea that Siege is all about O vs. D. In real play, I've discovered that the best D's have a smattering of offense, because any base you can concieve of is simply:
A. Too Easy to attack if noone is out in the field fighting and disrupting enemies.
B. Too Easy to defend making it a bad Siege map, otherwise known as "Epic" maps, where the difficulty and size makes for epic proportions and epic levels of boredom.
You can't find a base in between these situations. The best of course, is then to make it too easy, but allow the D free roam. Nothing can grant a team those extra few seconds they need more than their light or heavy attackers disrupting the enemy.
In other words, be careful in how you design this map. It's normally better for a team to have the chance to stop the enemy at the gates, instead of fighting them in a base that is quite cappable.
A. Too Easy to attack if noone is out in the field fighting and disrupting enemies.
B. Too Easy to defend making it a bad Siege map, otherwise known as "Epic" maps, where the difficulty and size makes for epic proportions and epic levels of boredom.
You can't find a base in between these situations. The best of course, is then to make it too easy, but allow the D free roam. Nothing can grant a team those extra few seconds they need more than their light or heavy attackers disrupting the enemy.
In other words, be careful in how you design this map. It's normally better for a team to have the chance to stop the enemy at the gates, instead of fighting them in a base that is quite cappable.
Fnord!
- Zoolooman offline
- Greenhorn
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 9:44 pm
by powdahound » Wed Aug 15, 2001 9:22 am
in re-reading stars idea i dont understand at all... you want it so the O can't get to the D's base but the D can get the the O base easily? rofl
- powdahound offline
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:15 pm
- Location: NH, USA
by powdahound » Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:38 pm
like star
isn't it sad guys?
i think he and hacker would make a great couple
isn't it sad guys?
i think he and hacker would make a great couple
- powdahound offline
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:15 pm
- Location: NH, USA
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests