R.I.P Trebuchet 3



  • I will miss you my dear friend.
    All the blood, sweat and tears that has been shed over the last few months in order to destroy you has to be shed no more, I enjoyed that you were there to rally our team in the harshest of times - when all your brother and sister Trebuchets were no more you always stood tall, but now my friend may you find peace in whatever afterlife wooden siege weapons go to.

    Rest In Peace Trebuchet Number Three - October 16th 2012 - March 2013

    Much love - Mason Archer.



  • It is an most unfortunate ending it had to go, R.I.P

    • Agathian Man at Arms


  • I was very shocked when I read it is going to be removed. It will be very interesting to see what the matches will be like now.



  • What?

    (Goes back and reads notes again).

    Oh dear.

    Well Hillside should be a push over for attackers now.



  • @gregcau:

    Well Hillside should be a push over for attackers now.

    Fool! You realise that we have to shoot each ship 7 times before they sink right? This is to make the last objective the main one rather than the second being the main one!



  • @RK:

    Fool! You realise that we have to shoot each ship 7 times before they sink right? This is to make the last objective the main one rather than the second being the main one!

    But thats easier than it was (used to be 10).

    Last objective was never too hard BUT maybe that was because you had to have a strong team to get to it.



  • @gregcau:

    But thats easier than it was (used to be 10).

    Last objective was never too hard BUT maybe that was because you had to have a strong team to get to it.

    True it was 10 this patch was completely insane, atleast in the european scene we havent played that map once competitively, only on friendly matches to find no team defeating the other. Hitting the ships 30 times against even a halfdecent team was really hard. I mean the archers can easily cover plural positions and the melee team swarming, you wont even get 30 regroups on 15 min!

    Now with more time, and atleast 21 shots instead of 30 we might see a neater map, altough I’d rather see the map was it was, with 9 ballista shots and trebu 3 having a major role in time left when you enter last stage.



  • Hillside + Citadel balance changes are something we will be keeping an eye on in beta testing.



  • @Andrew:

    Hillside + Citadel balance changes are something we will be keeping an eye on in beta testing.

    Especially Citadel, please. Can’t stand that map on any team. Only hard part for Agatha is the first objective, all the other objectives are painful to do as Mason.



  • @SavageBeatings:

    @Andrew:

    Hillside + Citadel balance changes are something we will be keeping an eye on in beta testing.

    Especially Citadel, please. Can’t stand that map on any team. Only hard part for Agatha is the first objective, all the other objectives are painful to do as Mason.

    Did you read the patch notes?

    viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11692

    We put a lot of effort into making Citadel more enjoyable.



  • Rofl Sometimes things that bug u at first change over time. I realy loved that map in the end. It was always the map to derp around and do stupid stuff :D I will miss u Treb #3 :-|



  • Now this phase will be one sided for Agatha, lol. But I suppose adding another treb isn’t possible without totally redoing the map.



  • @Skream:

    Now this phase will be one sided for Agatha, lol. But I suppose adding another treb isn’t possible without totally redoing the map.

    Yeah, that was evaluated. It’s not feasible to redo that entire area to add another one. Focus will be on balancing the Three remaining Trebuchet.



  • I petition that devs will include a headstone for treb 3 on the shores of the map!



  • I’ve had many a joyous moments with Treb 3… Goodbye my love.



  • Welp. Looks like Treb 1 is going to become the next zerg area for Mason’s for that will be the closest/easiest to defend.

    I’ll miss Treb 3 and those scrums on the stairway leading up. I’ll miss the battle of acrobatics upon the wooden beams that ran across the top and sides of the Treb 3 areas.

    Surely there could be a way to keep Treb 3 while balancing out the area around it + the approach to Treb 3? I mean, removing features entirely isn’t always the best way to balance it, and focussing more on the remaining Trebs, while it’s a good idea, it’s hard to envision any sort of balance coming out of that.

    Treb 1 is plausible if the Mason’s can establish a foothold there but they’re screwed if they have to try and get back up there due to there only being one, easily defensible staircase which will get them back there.

    Treb 2 is simply too open + Agatha high ground advantage w/ Archers to defend against, while the distance to it being slightly in favor of the Agathians.

    Treb 4 is too far from Mason spawn to defend properly and too close/accessible from Agatha spawn as they currently are.

    Not a fan of this change sorry. :(



  • @User:

    Stuff

    Sick-o.



  • IMO treb 1 is extremely easy to defend as well. You would think 2 would be easier than 1, but I’ve found getting treb 1 very difficult sometimes as well.



  • @SOC:

    IMO treb 1 is extremely easy to defend as well. You would think 2 would be easier than 1, but I’ve found getting treb 1 very difficult sometimes as well.

    Mason’s tend to leave Treb 1 because Treb 3 is much easier I’ve found.

    Stick a couple of Mason archers in Treb 1 and have a few heavies watching the entry points and they’re just as difficult, if not more so because you now have a shooting gallery which is the long corridor area leading up to Treb 1 and the two narrow chokepoints. The stairway and little bridge pass can be easily locked down.

    The only problem for Mason’s and treb 1 is getting back up there once they’ve died.



  • Was it ever considered to just add more of the wall to block treb 3’s sight from mason spawn? I think not being able to shoot at treb 3 or see agathians on it would have been enough to leave #3 in.


Log in to reply