Thanks for watching! What changes would you like to see in Siege? Join the Discord: / discord Follow my Livestreams: / cloudtears Support the Channel: / @cloudtears Thank you to our Cloudy Fan supporters! Hastrel
The change to have more days between tourney matches is great. Gives guilds more time to relax and -more important more time to craft new defenses. The shop changes are obviously nice. But what really concerns me are the new connections between towers 8/12/9/11. I feel like it mostly nullifies any common strategy in siege. Playing overlaps like from tower 8 to 12 (playing 12 down to one and take the tower right before 8 opens up) will be kinda pointless since you can reach 8 anyways from 11... I fear that siege will end up just beeing a battle for win rate (+activity, but this isn't an problem in high g3 siege) and strategy/macroing won't be a deciding factor anymore. Of course win rate should be one of the main reasons for a guild to win, but in the past if a 'slightly' weaker guild had a smart siege lead they were still able to have an even match due to better strategy. That probably won't be the case anymore and it'll be "win rate only" similar to tournament.
13-20 bases give less points than before not more, to make it take longer. . my guess is they want to ensure just holding 13 bases the entire siege doesn't end it on day 1 just by having 20k points first. . . . Kind of seems like they don't want the 20k to be reachable unless you're blue mapping. .. it also punishes giving up one tower of bonus far less. . in case you want to play more for the macro later and giving up bonus initially. etc. etc. . . . i'll leave that to the macro minds. of which i am not. similar on the macro with the extra lanes, i'm not entirely sure. . . but to me, the only thing that comes to mind, is maybe making it more difficult to timer wall? but you'd take both of those towers anyway. . . so unless theirs an interaction with the tower 10 race and base 5 which gets nullified or something I'm not sure. . . I do recall someone mentioning that a tower 10 race win essentially means you get 1st that siege assuming all equal guilds/macro ability. and it had something to do with the base 5 (it could be 5 & 6 being needed). . maybe it circumvents that interaction? . . basically no siege macro players have guides on siege macro that i've seen.
Ahh yeah I see. I'm not sure what the goal is for the changes, since a good portion of sieges end within day 1 anyways, I just want to be able to finish my attacks sooner. I don't do macro myself, though I do understand the basics.
@@CloudTears I'd personally also like 30 minute towers. . . the interesting drawback to that however is the timeframe of activity. for example if one guilds first 2 hours has 10 or so members. and another is sitting at 5 . . . but by 2:30 they'd have the same amount. . the shorter timers can cause some serious problems. . . a good example of this recently was the mali vs mythril match, where the massive early lead mali got was an auto win. as mythril simply didn't have the people online at that time to retake. . . It would just be more exacerbated. . . (yes mali still likely wins that match, but their was no reasonable way to recover from that big of a lead initially). . in that regard, shorter towers could cause even more problems with guilds in different time zones. where you'd generate a larger lead much earlier into the match. and assuming all 3 guilds are equal, early bird gets that worm. . While that still occurs to some extent now, it would be more widespread. . . . a 1-2 person difference even at a reasonable 85% winrate is 3 towers difference for however long it takes for others to get there. . . . that's a lot of bonus, and potentially timer walls (albeit shorter ones, it's still an hour to recover)
For Global specifically, it's an unfortunate name because it's based on US Pacific Standard Time, so you have people with long investments with timezones that don't always work in their favor. It's a bit rough overall -- maybe encouraging guilds to attack more towers can give more opportunities to attack. It can be rough when guilds hold attacks and play reactive to the other guilds.
@@CloudTears unfortunately that's how it goes sometimes unless you're willing to forgoe your chances at 1st place. . . if they sit back you can't commit too hard to the other guild outside a severe strength disparity. Tis the nature of the tug of war in a map of 3. . . equal drawbacks to having all siege maps be 1v1's. My personal preference would be to just have all maps 1v1's. but let you hit up to 5 towers from your base rather than just the couple near it. And set no cap on points. . . with tourney rules going back to thier standard 1v1's. The extra towers and point caps is mostly in case a siege is hyper one sided, you at least have towers to hit for those who want to, and the points only matter as a final tally of who wins instead of a race. . but removing them for the tournament play. . . And altering matchmaking to only play people within say 10 ranks of you . . maybe 15? . . otherwise you'd get extremely one sided games all the time. . . As theirs noticeable gaps in strengths from top 1-2, to the next 3-5, to the next 3-5 and so on. . where facing someone in your own league is pretty close but someone outside that is generally a snowball . . . . it does have it's downsides.
@@CloudTears Imo the change is to prevent what happens on global. After the change i dont think it will be possible to make 7k points advantage and then sit and cut the enemy until you win. After the patch you wont get that much ahead meaning your winrate is going to matter more than just swarming the enemy. At least in 1on1 setting. Dont know how it changes season play though.
Almighty Pieces you buy with Guild Points to get more duplicates of that Hall of Heroes. If you want to use them to get the full benefit from a Hall of Heroes, you need 10,000 Guild Points, which will give you an additional 5 duplicates from the Hall of Heroes if you use them after every floor.
