Siege Weapons: WotLK Only?

[Sarevokcz]

Nobody likes driving lots of vehicles around. When you go through 90 levels and lots of time spent gearing just to jump into a vehicle it feels kind of lame.

Its not terribly exciting for the driver and for the opponents it can be quite annoying to just have to tear through tons of health just for it to respawn in a few minutes.

Vehicles just are currently not fun in their iteration.

People generally liked Wintergrasp. The hate came from Strand/Isle mostly. I feel like WG was kinda fine design-wise, whereas Strand just ruined them, especially since for years horde started as defenders and had autodisadvantage of not being prepared in time for sieges, it was damn hard to get achiev to not get destroyed gates as horde, even with full premade.

Tol Barad was horrible design in most aspects anyway, sieges were just icing on the cake.

[Netherspark]

The majority of the complaints were either because people didn't like fighting something that wasn't a player, didnt like being taken out of their comfort zone, or because the guys on their team who were driving the vehicles didnt know what to do with them.

Trying not to be insulting here, but a worrying amount of the people who complained about vehicles had a tendency to be the ones who think all battleground objectives are "dumb" and every BG should just be a random deathmatch.

Personally, I like vehicle matches; its a whole new dynamic that sadly has been relegated to quests only. I'd very much like to see more battlegrounds using them, maybe not to the extent of strand/wintergrasp/IoC which are almost entierly vehicle-focused, but possibly something that just includes siege weapons, yet doesnt revolve around them.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Here's my change list:

Make siege weapons easier to blow up, but more effective; make each siege weapon more specialized, and add new ones (ie, split the catapults so that there is a balista for destroying other siege weapons or ships, a trebuchet for long-range bombardment of fortresses, catapults for structure destruction, make the flying machine an anti-infantry weapon, etc).

Make siege weapon maps larger, with massive fortresses that are mostly destructible, specifically targeted for 20+ player teams. Also, make the map less boring; actually add detail, not just hills and a few trees; add trenches and rivers for ships to base through.

Add new types of intractable objects (such as pilot able ships or airships, activatable boiling oil pots, drawbridges and portcullises, etc)

Add updating/dynamic team objectives to the siege weapon maps (ie, capture western tower, break down the south gate, etc).

Last but not least, people should get more rewards from SW Battlegrounds; not just increased Conquest Points, but maybe some gold and loot as well.

Your thoughts?

[shokter]

like we were promised.

Every time a forum poster uses this phrase an angel has its wings plucked off with rusty pliers.

[Gimlix]

Siege Weapons are awesome in like trailers like in 5.1, and i would love to see them at Siege of Orgrimmar to make it more badass, controlling one in a raid like ulduar was amazing aswell, but in bg's i wouldn't consider it again.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Siege Weapons are awesome in like trailers like in 5.1, and i would love to see them at Siege of Orgrimmar to make it more badass, controlling one in a raid like ulduar was amazing aswell, but in bg's i wouldn't consider it again.

Well maybe they don't have to implemented in BGs, but could be in PvP zones like Wintergrasp, but the zone would be specificalyl geared for battles using siege weapons, ships, forts, trenches, planes, etc.

[Osmeric]

I think destructible walls also caused server load problems.

[Ihnasir]

Personally, I'm glad they're gone. They always felt too weak for what they appeared to be, and their combat style was utterly monotonous.

[Slowpoke is a Gamer]

They thought it'd be a cool feature, but it then wound up subtracting from the experience instead of adding.

[mitbrandir]

I actually liked them as it gave another aspect to the game, imo.

[Brightamethyst]

Promised is putting it a bit strongly. Teased would be more the word.

Except it was promised. It was on the darned box art.

http://pics.mobygames.com/images/cov...6996396-00.jpg

[haxs101]

Promised is putting it a bit strongly. Teased would be more the word. And considering how the ground ones worked out I don't think they were a big loss. But hey that's me, a guy who has SotA and IoC as his two blacklists(AV being a strong contender but given a reprieve due to a lack of vehicles).

Cool little fact, they were promised. Do you happen to own the box copy of WOTLK? It actually says and shows player aircrafts on there, but they aren't actually in the game.

Damnit, Brightamethyst beat me too it.

[Deleted]

There was no Skill involved. You just pressed Buttons and hoped that no one kicks your Ass while you where in it.

You mean... like everyone in Random BGs all the time? /zing

[Millie]

Promised is putting it a bit strongly. Teased would be more the word.

Try reading the damn WotLK box.

"Engage in aerial dogfights with flying mounts and new, gnome-engineered planes" with a picture of planes fighting in Wintergrasp. That's not a tease, that's a damn promised selling point right on the game's box.

[namelessone]

Vehicles were boring. You get 2-3 buttons and an ability to destroy some pre-placed objects. It could be fun once or twice, but as a major feature, it just doesn't cut it. After all, siege engines might actually be more fun when players are not driving them.

[Duravian]

Nobody really liked them. There weren't a huge success, so Blizzard got rid of them. Also, Tol Barad. It had Siege Weapons.

Nobody liked them my ass. Siege weapons made pvp not suck and get boring. Vehicles were fun to drive and turrets were fun to mount. Knocking down walls was exciting too.

[Razorice]

Personally, I hated them. I'm glad there is no more siege weapons.

[Kaleredar]

Vehicles were boring. You get 2-3 buttons and an ability to destroy some pre-placed objects. It could be fun once or twice, but as a major feature, it just doesn't cut it. After all, siege engines might actually be more fun when players are not driving them.

I don't want some rail shooter thing where players just run behind it and tear the vehicle apart while you vainly wait for the game to take you somewhere relevant. Ask yourself: were the taxi BC bombing runs "fun" and "exciting?" Hell no.

The abilities don't need to be "in depth." In fact, they SHOULDN'T be in depth. They shouldn't require maintaining debuffs to use with rotations, or any similar tripe. They should have giant, sweeping abilities that might have long CDs, or cast times, or are tricky to aim, but royally fuck over anyone that they hit. THAT'S what siege machines should be.

As far as I'm concerned, Wintergrasp did siege combat the best it's been. Blizzard should have stuck to their guns and continued making World PvP zones with bigger fortresses, more diverse maps, and more vehicle options, rather than just trying something "different" with Tol Barad, seeing that TB failed, and then saying "to hell with it."

[xindralol]

I don't like any vehicle combat (including ulduar) so yeah I don't mind it being restricted to wotlk content.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Ok, granted that there were some problems with SWs, but I spent $40 on WotLK when it came out, and I was really, really hyped for SWs. And of all the hundreds and hundreds of Blizzard employees who work on WoW, they can't get even a few to fix/refine/improve them!