Anyone else thinks that the new crossbow map is bs? | Forums

[Draghmar]

And nobody asked the devs to put ballistas.

At least they admitted that they weren't sure if it will be good addition and they waiting for feedback for the future maps.

[Captain-Courage]

At least they admitted that they weren't sure if it will be good addition and they waiting for feedback for the future maps.

Then it's a good stance from their part.
Let's just hope they don't take too much time to analyse the data.
The map is not toal trash, but some elements reallly need to be reworked.

[Manlorey]

Except there is not that much tactic.
One of each teams to the ballistas, one to defend him, and then the 2 left from each team that wait for the shooting contest to end.
There is no flow, it's totally static, sclerosis gameplay.

Except that it is possible to capture and defend a point by yourself, constantly switching between the ballista and battle the enemies as they come one by one, almost like the honorable duels held on the medieval battlefield between knights or samurai. It is also incredibly fun to see the gameplay unfold into a different scenario. It can be played multiple ways, and the flow is what you make of it.

Chivalry had siege weapons too, but they were better implemented.
And nobody asked the devs to put ballistas.

Can't say anything about that game as I have never played it.
Regarding the ballistas, well, it's just one map. Every other map doesn't have them. So in my opinion, it is fair - if you don't like the ballistas, you have plenty of other maps to choose from. People who do like them as a nice gameplay feature have just this one map.

[CoyoteXStarrk]

I wouldn't be so damn irritated if it wasn't for the fact that idiots keep voting for the map.


Every other match this past week has been the stupid Ballista map.

[Butonfly]

Except that it is possible to capture and defend a point by yourself, constantly switching between the ballista and battle the enemies as they come one by one, almost like the honorable duels held on the medieval battlefield between knights or samurai. It is also incredibly fun to see the gameplay unfold into a different scenario. It can be played multiple ways, and the flow is what you make of it.


Can't say anything about that game as I have never played it.
Regarding the ballistas, well, it's just one map. Every other map doesn't have them. So in my opinion, it is fair - if you don't like the ballistas, you have plenty of other maps to choose from. People who do like them as a nice gameplay feature have just this one map.

This can be a problem though as players will quit after loading into the map, leaving bots or game instability in their wake. The bots are stupid and run into ballista fire to boot, leading to even more lopsided games.

The change is good because it does change the flow of things. However the ballista are bad because they polarize the battle so that players don't engage one another.

[Captain-Courage]

Except that it is possible to capture and defend a point by yourself, constantly switching between the ballista and battle the enemies as they come one by one, almost like the honorable duels held on the medieval battlefield between knights or samurai. It is also incredibly fun to see the gameplay unfold into a different scenario. It can be played multiple ways, and the flow is what you make of it.


Can't say anything about that game as I have never played it.
Regarding the ballistas, well, it's just one map. Every other map doesn't have them. So in my opinion, it is fair - if you don't like the ballistas, you have plenty of other maps to choose from. People who do like them as a nice gameplay feature have just this one map.

Thing is, siege weapons are not a bad idea, but they work better in games that involve more players, and dominion is only 4v4 , which is too few, and in a static map, meaning the frontline never really moves.

In chivalry, games can go up to 32 vs 32 (even if 8 vs 8 or 16 vs 16 are more comon), and the objectives maps are evolving during the game.
Meaning, if you are in the attacking team, your first objective will be to breach throught the portal of a citadel, for example by escorting a cart full of explosives, a ram to break the doors, or a siege tower to go over the walls. If you manage then you enter a second phase where you must storm through the village, reach the castle and break through it's door, and then you reach a 3rd phase where you must complete the final objective (for example burning a library, freeing prisonners or killing the enemy King), all of that while the defending team tries to prevent you to do so.

In such a set up, siege weapons work well (be they offensive or defensive) because the battlefiel is actually evolving as the game goes and they can't cover every point of interest, even if they can actually oneshot numerous players at once. Once you broke through the citadel portal, the catapult you used is no longer needed as the frontline has moved.

I sincerily think they can really make a great use of siege weapons in multiplayer in For Honor, but it should be in a mode that involve much players than 4v4
A siege mode with a real evolving frontline like Chivalry (not just a "B point") would be perfect for that.

[Manlorey]

This can be a problem though as players will quit after loading into the map, leaving bots or game instability in their wake. The bots are stupid and run into ballista fire to boot, leading to even more lopsided games.

The change is good because it does change the flow of things. However the ballista are bad because they polarize the battle so that players don't engage one another.

Well, people quitting and making a team extremely one sided is a problem already. Also, in most cases bots are stupid and you can eliminate them just as quick as on the Sentinel, as an example on Overwatch they can be easily kicked or thrown down, especially with certain movesets. But ledging is part of the game, for better or worse depends from your viewpoint, personally I think they add the need to be watchful of your surroundings on the battlefield of your choosing.

Thing is, siege weapons are not a bad idea, but they work better in games that involve more players, and dominion is only 4v4 , which is to few, and in a static map, meaning the frontline never really moves.

In chivalry, games can go up to 32 vs 32 (even if 8 vs 8 or 16 vs 16 are more comon), and the objectives maps are evolving during the game.
In such a set up, siege weapons work well (be they offensive or defensive) because the battlefiel is actually evolving as the game goes and they can't cover every point of interest, even if they can actually oneshot numerous players at once. Once you broke through the citadel portal, the catapult you used is no longer needed as the frontline has moved.

I sincerily think they can really make a great use of siege weapons in multiplayer in For Honor, but it should be in a mode that involve much players than 4v4
A siege mode with a real evolving frontline like Chivalry (not just a "B point") would be perfect for that.

Must totally agree with you on that, there can be better ways to implement the siege or the defense weapons into the flow of combat, and room for improvement is pretty much there (still, first step has been done). Modes with more players and siege objectives are certainly welcome.

[SlashingElbow]

i love it. only annoying thing is that there is some toxic teammates that will try to shoot u but im taking that into consideration and wont go on the balista if i see another teammate on the other side. I usually just stand with my Beastlander behind the wall and defend the point

[Tyrjo]

The funny thing about one-shot kill is that all the AoE skills like catapult do exactly the same thing and almost no one complains. :P

But the truth is it's too easy to use them. Especially one in the tower where you can't be even sneak up because of the sound and visual when someone enters the capture point area.

I hate the Catapult as well. Also one of those things that shouldn't be in the game. Instead of a cool team fight you get nuked and one shotted. A totally boring end to a match that instead could have been awesome.

[Vakris_One]

I like it. The map is awesome and the ballista's add something new to play with and think about. Situational awareness is now something you have to actually think about all the time on the Sentinel map rather than just near ledges. It feels a bit closer to what being in a medieval war would be like and that's a good element to strive for.

I hope they build upon this attempt and incorporate actual castle/fortress sieges with a more dynamic battlefield whose fronts change locations as the battle progresses towards either the attackers side or the defenders side. Put some burning oil in there for the defenders to use and put those cool ladder shooters from the campaign story for the attackers. I would also love to see the 'escort the huge battering ram' objective from the Knight's campaign being put into the multiplayer mode as perhaps the first stage of a castle/fortress seige mode.

Maybe make it into a 6v6 or 8v8 mode if possible once dedicated servers get put in.