1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

[POLL] Siege movement speed and collision size

Discussion in 'Lordaeron: The Aftermath' started by SvnmS, Feb 12, 2018.

?

What kind of siege ?

  1. 175 Movement Speed and 32 Collision size

    12 vote(s)
    52.2%
  2. 150 Movement Speed and 16 Collision size

    11 vote(s)
    47.8%
  1. SvnmS
    Offline

    SvnmS Brigand Map Maker

    Likes Received:
    717
    Trophy Points:
    135
    Ratings:
    +1,546 / 14 / -38
    It seems the siege units' collision size is causing unit lag.
    Of course, it is kind of what the collision size is expected to do, and the siege is useful, but no longer something you train until you reach the limit (which is what I wanted to achieve) but it seems that it isn't too fun to control them.
    I did buff their movement speed, but I thought that people might prefer a lower collision size instead.
  2. Skillerino
    Offline

    Skillerino one fool once told me have faith in humanity

    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Ratings:
    +221 / 3 / -4
    What about 175 movement speed and 16 collision size?I don't see it as an issue why do you want to have only one choice if reducing collision size would mean less unit lag = profit. Increased movement speed siege will not be as annoying to control and it won't be so bloody slow.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. SvnmS
    Offline

    SvnmS Brigand Map Maker

    Likes Received:
    717
    Trophy Points:
    135
    Ratings:
    +1,546 / 14 / -38
    Trust me, you do not want those numbers on Forsaken or DH's catapults.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. ShadowBro
    Offline

    ShadowBro

    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +54 / 0 / -5
    i like ms and colision size changes but as you said it causes unit lag and places like wrathgate hard to pass , so imo both values should get average values ( something larger than 16size , but 160-165 ms)
  5. SvnmS
    Offline

    SvnmS Brigand Map Maker

    Likes Received:
    717
    Trophy Points:
    135
    Ratings:
    +1,546 / 14 / -38
    I think there is no mid value between 16 and 32. the warcraft engine seems to set anything less than 32 to 16. 31 behaves exactly the same way as 16.
  6. Elbadruhel
    Offline

    Elbadruhel

    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    52
    Ratings:
    +476 / 31 / -29
    Svnms if the problem is u dont want forsaken and dh siege to be fast... Why u dont set them as 150 and the rest to 175?

    U have stronger and weaker sieges. Also aoe and single target. If im not wrong, different kind of dmgs too. Why not have different speed sieges? That would make fsctions more uniques and allow more strategies.
  7. SvnmS
    Offline

    SvnmS Brigand Map Maker

    Likes Received:
    717
    Trophy Points:
    135
    Ratings:
    +1,546 / 14 / -38
    Dark horde and legion's siege already has different speed values actually, lower than the others. But the issue is that setting them to his suggestion is mostly setting it back to how it was before, with the difference that now you can train 12 of them. I still need siege to be situationally good, and I think that both movement speed and collision size would be too good.
  8. Kamikaze15
    Offline

    Kamikaze15

    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Ratings:
    +113 / 2 / -5
    All units have their collision size equal now, 16, and siege is unlimited. This results in armies moving really slowly (lots of direction changes) when compared with before, and siege therefore pummeling them.

    - Imo, units collision size should be adjusted (at least by tiers, like, casters size 10, ranged 12, melee 14, big melee 16).
    - Siege, being the autocasted AOE that it is, should be... adjusted. Either lower its mobility a lot, so it is only useful in, you know, actual sieges; or nerfed (in power and max number). Or both. Right now, you can hole yourself in a choke, massing siege, and there is fuck all anyone can do about it (same as mass towering).

    So as not to double post, I'll say here that I like a lot of the other changes, and that I await future patches, to see how everything is going to turn out.
    Also, about the medium armor problem. I like the more conservative values you proposed to Nalesean but, if that is limiting you (argument can be made that casters should melt before melee), is it possible to make a new armor type?
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  9. SvnmS
    Offline

    SvnmS Brigand Map Maker

    Likes Received:
    717
    Trophy Points:
    135
    Ratings:
    +1,546 / 14 / -38
    No, no more armor types that can be used unfortuantely.
    The WC3 engine doesn't really care about 10/12/14, for it, all of those are 8. It only considers 2,4,8,16 and 32 as values, any intermediate values are reduced to fit that scale.

    Yes, I lowered the mobility a lot, and a lot of players are actually not using them in battle because of how hard to handle they are, but a lot complained about the lag, so I'm trying to assess how bad it is with this poll.

    EDIT : perhaps for the next version, I'll have some factions get 16 collision size and 150 movement speed on their catapults, while others keep the current version, this way, people can know which one they prefer to be more general.
    • Like Like x 1
    • This This x 1
  10. Elbadruhel
    Offline

    Elbadruhel

    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    52
    Ratings:
    +476 / 31 / -29
    @Arlt please fix the móvile version of the web. Latelty its a pain to write here...