Siege Range Clarifacation

MMZ_Torak · March 2003

<div class="IPBDescription">can someone "in the know" chime in</div> Siege ranges were set at X prior to release.
Siege ranges were changed to Y just before release.
In 1.04 siege ranges were changed Z.

Does Z = X?

criogenics · March 2003

Yeah, Flay mentioned it in the changelog

MMZ_Torak · March 2003

Actually what the changelog says is:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>- Reduced siege cannon range from 1250 to 1100 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Is 1100 the "old range"?

DizzyOne · March 2003

I dont believe so

Drew · March 2003

i know that the siege range before 1.0 was less than it was in 1.0, thats how the hera and bast issues arose.

and prossessing can still siege both hives.

kiwakai · March 2003

Seeing as how you can still seige from unfair places, I'm assuming this didnt just slip by the playtesters, and it's still higher then it was pre-release.

coil · March 2003

From the 1.04 change log:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>- Reduced siege cannon range from 1250 to 1100
- Siege cannon targets now must be sighted to be hit (in view of friendly player or scanned by commander)
- NOTES:
- The green circle that appears when the siege cannon is selected by the commander is using the old range, but this will be fixed in v1.1.
<b>- This is the value siege range was for most of our internal playtesting (hence the bast and hera issues that suddenly arrived with v1.0) </b></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

MMZ_Torak · March 2003

Ok, so I guess what I am looking for is whether the fact that you can siege 2 hives from one location is an intended element of Hera or if it was a mistake. The reason I am confused is if Z = X than it's either a map design error (which Monse says it isn't)
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Setting up siege cannons in these spots is not what I would refer to as exploiting, but it's unsportsmanlike and makes you less of a man. It's the NS equivalent to boxing someone and getting in a few quick low blows while the Ref can't see your hands. You may get away with it, but your win is cheapened and you lose respect from more fair-minded players. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

or an inadvertant happenstance of tinkering with the siege ranges. If X does not = Z, then it is very understandably not a map error.

Zel · March 2003

maybe now one siege wont reach both hives, but if you control the whole area you could set up siege on both sides of processing and still own all from one room.

we dont want to see siege range cut all the way down to nothing, do we?

MMZ_Torak · March 2003

No absolutely not. To me it just seems unfair that either team could hold 2 locations so easily. It was my understanding that NS was (in a perfect world) supposed to be a fight for the control of the third hive. If one team can control 2 of the three hives within minutes from one location, that it would be a serious imbalance not just poor sportsmanship. In any event, the word has come down from on high that "it will be addressed in 1.1" so I'm happy.

MonsieurEvil · March 2003

We'll have to wait for flay to get back to get a final clarification. My understanding was as I originally posted.

As for 1.1 fixing it (via map and code changes) on these 2 maps - yep.

MMZ_Torak · March 2003

Cool, I'm not trying to be an **** about this, I just know that players will not police themselves. I have commanded on Hera and been ejected for not taking processing. It's just rather aggrivating to always deal with a processing rush.

Siege Range Clarifacation

Comments