1. This forum is obsolete and read-only. Feel free to contact us at support.keenswh.com

Balanced Siege Weapons

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by MrTwinkeh, Jan 24, 2015.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. MrTwinkeh

    MrTwinkeh Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    Hi Engineers,

    I'm as excited for the game as you all are - but I have one concern.
    Siege equipment. Don't get me wrong, I love everything about it except for the fact that there is probably one or two designs that work better than all the others, which will make variety hard to come by. Imagine every person you defend against all have the same old trebuchet design. It would be incredibly dull.
    I believe that there should be different ways of balancing siege weapons. Of course there should be some designs that obviously are terrible and lacking in every way, but the viable designs to be used effectively should have a lot of variety. So for example, one piece of equipment has a high fire rate, but it trades the weight of it's projectiles for it. Another siege engine could be incredibly powerful, but hard to set up and very slow. This makes it so that people will use different designs instead of having one holy grail of a siege weapon.
    Another concern is something similar to SE's problems: abuse of game mechanics. You'll notice that people can make devastating weapons with no downsides in SE, such as gravity cannons - punching holes through 10 layers of armour. What I am saying is there shouldn't be a way of amplifying power in siege engines. So someone could roll up with their gamebreaking weapon and smash your castle to bits. Care should be taken to avoid the chance of creating something like that (using bugs to create powerful weapons).

    Apart from that, I think this game will do just fine with siege engines.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2015
  2. War.Freak

    War.Freak Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    61
    I also think that abuse of game mechanics or bugs, compromising realistic physics, should be taken care of.
    other that that, i think you're free to build whatever you want. there most likely are going to be a variety of designs with different trade-offs anyway, even if you don't 'balance out' the game/different blocks.
    So for the moment, since we cant experience of how siege weapons and their power will be, I would choose for option: 'Let siege components be as they are, aslong as they are not more powerfull then in real life (aka not with unreal physics that have more power then they should have).
     
  3. Martinineter

    Martinineter Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,253
    Those that take pride in abusing bugs should be killed. But it would be even better if it would be harder for them to abuse these glitches.
     
  4. calxllum

    calxllum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    131
    The physics inquisition will take them, do not worry. No one expects the physics inquisition.
     
  5. Martinineter

    Martinineter Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,253
    That is what you would expect....
     
  6. War.Freak

    War.Freak Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    61
    ooooh my goooooood
     
  7. calxllum

    calxllum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    131
    But on the topic I feel trying to implement these restrictions would remove some of the freedom of our engineering. In SE, there is probably a ship design that is objectively the best. It's fast, has fire power, is a small target and has good armour. But we don't build that one ship over and over because we want to build our own. We want to build stuff that looks cool.

    Also, what if the physics inquisition never get anyone... Because we expect them to! PLOT TWIST!
     
  8. Martinineter

    Martinineter Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,253
    But what if you expect us to expect you expecting us? I don't think you expect that!
     
  9. n7m6e7

    n7m6e7 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    61
    They did research real seige weapons, and plan to add more. Im sure itll all balance out. Catapults have limited range and capacity, but can be rolled into position quickly. Trebuchet Have a longer range and capacity, but slower to load, harder to move, ect. From the dev pics, they are working on ballistas. Which would make sense for range, and accuracy. The sniper of ME. I think it would also be cool if they had prototype weapons. Such as the rapidfire arrow shooter they tested on mythbusters, and perhaps the whatcha.(though that may be after medieval... )
     
  10. calxllum

    calxllum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    131
    But what if I expected you to expect me to expect you expecting me to expect you. DID YOU EXPECT THAT?
     
  11. Martinineter

    Martinineter Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,253
    Yes, the inquisition has resources beyond your wildest imagination. Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: suprise, fear, ruthless efficiency an almost fanatical devotion to Newton and nice red uniforms. These weapons are used by us to deceive those that uppose us. Nothing comes to us as a suprise, we KNOW!
     
  12. calxllum

    calxllum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    131
    Or do you? What if you're not even real!
     
  13. Martinineter

    Martinineter Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,253
    Even if I was not real, I would still be the heretics worst nightmare. Fear shall consume them, heretics shall fall beneath the might of the inquisition!
     
  14. Chrono13

    Chrono13 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    105
    What do you mean by "capacity"?
     
  15. Martinineter

    Martinineter Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,253
    Probably the weight of the stone that it can fling.
     
  16. Evito

    Evito Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    It's possible to make catapults that fling absolutely massive stones, the problem with a catapult is the weight ratio of the catapult vs the flung armature is rather pisspoor.
    Also their range is not exactly worthy of a cheer compared to some other weaponry such as ballistae or trebuche.

    Also the snipers of the age were indeed ballistas not trebuchets. Trebuchets were often (mind you not always) built to be fired on a single horizontal axis to pound the same area of the walls and city over and over.
    Often enough the object is to force a breach not to reduce the castle to ruins. You do want the castle for yourself once you kill the guy in it most of the time.
     
  17. BB.JoeNado

    BB.JoeNado Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    70
    Disclaimer: All this information I got from Civ 5. The Hwacha (not whatcha) Was used in medieval times. However it was only used in Korea and it needed alot of gunpowder (which no one seems to want in this game:confused:). But other than that I think Hwachas would be awesome seeing as they are the bossest thing ever.
     
  18. War.Freak

    War.Freak Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    61
    I have my doubts about the poll, they seem to stimulate Op's opinion either way:
    If i choose option "I think that there should be more opportunity for variety." it would mean that it would be prevented "having one holy grail of a siege weapon" .
    It would limit components so that a variety of different designs are availeble.
    if i choose the other one "I think care should be taken to avoid over-powered weapons." it would also mean that it would be prevented "having one holy grail of a siege weapon"
    also limiting components so that a variety of different designs are availeble.
    one just has more emphasize than the other, but they both do the same. Rendering this poll useless.
    but well, maybe i'm wrong? anybody?
    on a side note, i would have liked at least 1 more option. If to that i'm wrong on said above ^
     
  19. Wintersend

    Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    I agree, there needs to be a "we should be able to build whatever our minds can create" option.
     
  20. waterlimon

    waterlimon Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,499
    I think well be fine as long as there are no physics explosion bugs that provide infinite energy to launch your projectiles (Given that there are ropes, I wouldnt be surprised once you connect a few hundred in a wicked configuration and throw your ammo somewhere inside the monster).

    Of course, given enough time and resources, you SHOULD be able to build weapons of mass destruction.

    The key is, that through proper game design, it should be ensured that you cannot easily get enough time nor resources to do this just by hiding in some corner of the world building it in secrecy. This places a few constraints:
    1. The world must be finite (so you cannot hide completely, sure you can still hide but at least its POSSIBLE to find you)
    2. The rate at which you can gather resources should not grow exponentially like in SE (moar drills hurr moar assemblyrs n refyneries durr). Rather, increasing production should become HARDER as you get more production, not EASIER like in SE. This is actually easier in ME since your castle is in a fixed location, with finite resources around you, so youll need to go farther and farther to get more. But production rates should also be capped by manpower so 100% automation shouldnt be impossible (95% maybe, but 100% should be prevented by lets say requiring maintenance of machinery once in a while, so more machinery, more work)
    3. Building should become harder as you go bigger since theres more hauling stuff around involved (especially if you make things higher)
    4. Dangers like thunderstorms, barbarians etc. should actively target laggy creations more than smaller ones for performance reasons. (this is realistic too, barbarians target people with wealth, lighting strikes things that are high...)
    5. Structural integrity should require big creations to use much bulkier supports, so you cant just linearly scale up your designs to make them more powerful.
    6. Siege weapons shouldnt be used against other players but against AI, so nobody cares if theyre a bit OP
     
  21. cyrv

    cyrv Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    57
    ...and thats how you ruin the game for >90% of people here.
     
  22. Lycinus

    Lycinus Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    36
    Yeah... I dont get that too, because that would mean AIs build castles too, or that siege engines are useless, right? Maybe I misunderstood.
     
  23. MrTwinkeh

    MrTwinkeh Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    Wow I didn't expect such a big response.

    On regards to the poll, I struggled to think of more options for it, and I thought that people who don't agree just wouldn't tick anything. I didn't think of adding a 'I disagree' part. Also, it is multi-optional, so you can pick both if you want. Sorry about the poll, then.

    But still, I stand by my words in that I don't think there should be a clear 'winner' with no downsides in terms of siege weapons. Sure, one might be slightly better, but they ALL should have a downside of some kind. A siege weapon that can punch through one wall and out the side of the other wall? Either that should be impossible or take yonks to reload.
     
  24. n7m6e7

    n7m6e7 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    61
    Thanks, idk how to spell the damn thing, i just like to yell its name, and whatch it fire. And in the end, its only really effective against infantry. Itd be fun to fire over the walls.

    As for gunpowder, the fear is that invites cannons and guns into the game making trebuchet and bows obsolete. I disagree, as without rifling, guns are a pain at a mere 50yds, and cannons take a lot to make and fire.
     
  25. Wintersend

    Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    You need to have a I disagree option on your poll. This is because other wise it is rigged to get an outcome that is favorable to your suggestion either way. There needs to be something that says I don't think we need arbitrary balancing mechanisms. Which is what I would vote for. Everything in this scenario balances itself.

    For example, in your siege engine that breaks through two walls in one shot, it would either be immobile due to being made of stone or it would be very vulnerable to fire due to being made out of wood. It would also likely have to move across flat plains and not handle slopes of more than a few degrees very well and would be too heavy to pass over almost all bridges. Either way, it would require a massive amount of resources and time and would be devastating if destroyed since odds are its really your only offensive weapon of note.
     
  26. TheAquaticSeal

    TheAquaticSeal Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    21
    From the videos that were released it seems that you would need more tension and that would require more time to pull back and thus balancing the game. Unless you build a wind turbine but by the time that happens the castles onagers would have ripped you and your siege weapon to tiny bite sized pieces. :D
     
  27. calxllum

    calxllum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    131
    The physics inquisition are the arbiters of balance.
     
  28. Wintersend

    Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    I know a high-ranked inquisitor if we want to call him in.
     
  29. calxllum

    calxllum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    131
    What if I am a high ranking librarian of the inquisition! Didn't expect that, now did you...
     
  30. MrTwinkeh

    MrTwinkeh Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    Terribly sorry, but I can't change the poll. It'll just have to be disregarded.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.