RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »Honestly I'd be more worried about resource drain/cost increase poisons. They are the only bad thing about the non-cp campaigns and in that campaign they are most ridiculously broken OP mechanic in this history of this game
You think they are harsh on TF? Just you wait and see lol!
People are gonna rage...get tagged with one and instantly out of resources and if your outnumbered your pretty much done. Those thing will deter and make people mad far more then siege...them removing cp for a week will buff those poisons by like 300% they cripple you ridiculously bad in non cp...I can see the rage coming
GorraShatan wrote: »I'd say all tests aside, am I the only one who prefers siege to be higher damage? I think it makes terrain matter more and fights more dynamic.
I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)
TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.