Bring back Siege!

So, i played the game a while ago back when it was in beta or something and when i started playing again i was suprised  that the game mode Siege is completely gone. Honestly besides the survival mode the MOBA/TD combination that was Siege was one of the greatest aspects of OMD!U. I realize that this is not news to everyone else who stayed current but i am genuinely upset that they would remove such a great mode and feel we should do something to bring it back because Sabotage is no where near as fun or challenging. They got rid of a promising MOBA and replaced it with what is essentially a 3D Bloons TD Battles which is a big downgrade.
«13

Comments

  • well heres the dev`s reason for it

    Despite tremendous efforts, Siege PvP mode just hasn't worked out. As we've gone through various iterations on the game mode, we've ultimately seen only a small portion of our players actively playing Siege. More importantly, people who play Siege matches are less likely to continue playing the game at all after their match. This has been the case since the beginning of Open Beta, when matchmaking queues were shorter and games were more frequent. As some of the most passionate fans of Siege mode, it's been difficult for us at Robot to come to terms with this feedback and data. Ultimately, the Siege game mode has a small hardcore group of players, but it isn't building a healthy long-term community around itself.

    As the game has grown, Siege and Survival modes have competed with one another more and more for development resources. The need to balance the traps, heroes, and gear for both of these game modes and develop each in consideration with the other is holding both modes back.

    The most common piece of community feedback we get is that the game still needs to feel more like OMD and OMD2. We've always agreed with that feedback. Adding Survival and Endless modes to OMDU was a big step in that direction, and we can make them much, much better. The vast majority of our beta players came looking for that classic Orcs Must Die! feeling, and we can and will deliver it.

    Siege mode is being removed from Orcs Must Die! Unchained as of the next update . We believe that competitive gameplay still has a future in Orcs Must Die!, but we've decided that Siege mode is just not the right fit for that. Competitive gameplay could return to OMDU, and if it does, it won't be in the form of Siege.

    Our focus will now turn entirely toward making Survival feel, look, sound, and play more like a clear evolution of OMD and OMD2. We're doubling down on Survival mode to bring back the kick-orc OMD gameplay you love.



    there you go ..siege was removed in november 2016 if my memory correct


    here`s a link to the original post

    siege removed update

  • I have always wondered why they dont just have BOTH gamemodes?
    So the hardcore sabotage fans can
    ya know
    sabotage
    And the siege fans can siege
    (I personally liked siege as it let me lead hordes of minions into other hordes of minions and watch them slaughter each other)
    "Remember! Gnoll dont have a union, when you harm a gnoll, it has no insurance!"
  • ShadeDevShadeDev Member, Robot Entertainment, Early Access, Apprentice Founder, Featured Developer
    I have always wondered why they dont just have BOTH gamemodes?
    So the hardcore sabotage fans can
    ya know
    sabotage
    And the siege fans can siege
    (I personally liked siege as it let me lead hordes of minions into other hordes of minions and watch them slaughter each other)
    There's too many sacrifices that are made for one mode or the other...

    Imagine playing against midnight.  Her skill set is fundamentally flawed for PvP, but awesome for survival.
    Doug Houserman
    Robot Entertainment | Lead Balance Designer
  • ShadeDev said:
    I have always wondered why they dont just have BOTH gamemodes?
    So the hardcore sabotage fans can
    ya know
    sabotage
    And the siege fans can siege
    (I personally liked siege as it let me lead hordes of minions into other hordes of minions and watch them slaughter each other)
    There's too many sacrifices that are made for one mode or the other...

    Imagine playing against midnight.  Her skill set is fundamentally flawed for PvP, but awesome for survival.
    Aight I guess thats fair.
    Like I would be content if there was just some way I can see minions fight each other.
    I already suggested being able to use consumable cards in survival n what not but eh
    "Remember! Gnoll dont have a union, when you harm a gnoll, it has no insurance!"
  • Yea, I'd love to be able to (periodically?) summon minions in survival.  You'd get some real epic Order vs Unchained battles going on that way.
  • Just bring back Spore mushroom from omd2 that was amazing as hell (for those who dont know it) http://orcsmustdie.wikia.com/wiki/Spore_Mushrooms
  • Yeah but like, the problem I have with spore mushrooms is that they only get ONE minions per use
    I would preffer to just be able to use my consumables, that way I can have a large group spawned in a hurry
    If say a large group of minions is getting too close to my rift and I dont have the coin for traps
    "Remember! Gnoll dont have a union, when you harm a gnoll, it has no insurance!"
  • tl;dr
    Impossible to balance anything since there are 3 different gamemodes
    Too low playerbase resulting in a lot of unbalanced matches
    Siege looks good to people mostly due to nostalgia, I miss it too but it was heavily flawed in so many ways. 
  • I think it says a lot that so many guys who claim to be upset that siege is gone, coincidentally hadn't played the game for months and months.
  • xciencexcience Member, Early Access
    edited September 19

    you devs should consider brining it back for a community event, or just as an event. For like a week or so people could play it and earn prizes. That way you wont have to bother balancing it and we can just have fun derping around in it. Games like LoL do it with Ultra Rapid Fire events and have success.

    edit: I don't actually like siege or sabotage and came back to the game for the co-op. I still would play siege thought if it was a limited time thing for bonus goodies.

  • I think the idea of bringing in modes that offer a similar experience was the way to go.  I believe it is fairly clear that the formation of sabotage is a direct response to having siege removed.  I know the devs don't want to arbitrarily disappoint a portion of their player base, so clearly the distinction of balance impact truly was damaging the development of the game to a significant degree.  I feel like I can see it since in my view the game's updates and improvements have been coming in droves ever since they abandoned that mode.  I would like to see other modes or even an attempt at siege (or similar direct PVP mode) in the future, but I am in no way expecting it any time soon.  I don't mind coasting on timely content updates at the pace we've been seeing this year for a while longer.  I for one would like to see more some survivaly maps and traps before they try their hand at another mode again.
  • let the dead stay dead.
  • I keep hearing that siege mode had " a lot of problems" but i never actually saw anyone naming all those problems. I didnt experience siege since i started playing only for 100 or so days but i would love to hear about the problems that it had. What was so bad that it had to go? Was it the mode it self or the resources needed to fix it all those "problems" ? Im just asking as a player that supports the omdu game and i hope ill get an answer from someone. Thank you
  • RandreRandre Member, Master Founder, Early Access
    edited September 25
    Hello ManceRader,

    The fundamental problem with siege was the skill gap. Siege had too many things going on at any one point and a single bad play would cost you the game. Most matches were decided by wave 2 and everything else was just delaying the inevitable. The skill ceiling in Siege was stupidly high and it was a mode where you HAD to work as a team to win. No single player could carry a match. That made running with random people painful and thus promoted teams. Who by the nature of being a pre-made team would stomp on all the random players. Which made people not want to queue random. Which in turn made people not want to play unless they had a team. But teams stopped playing if they always lost to the better pre-mades. Which reduced the number of players. So on and so on. 

    Short version: Siege was very unfriendly to new players. For someone trying to learn it was arduous.

    You could probably write an essay on why Siege failed. But I hope this short explanation helps (note all the above is my opinion and may not perfectly reflect reality).

    Thanks,
    Randre
  • A story mode would fit into the OMD francise where you learn about the background of the characters (i personally love reading the bios)
  • TeckTeck Member
    edited September 25
    ShadeDev said:

    I'm just not convinced that there are any changes we could make to have fixed siege.  I fundamentally believe that players don't want another MOBA-like game right now.

    Does that mean that siege could have been converted into a completely different PvP game?  Yes, it could have.  However, it would have still had the largest problem...  Designing heroes for siege and survival makes both modes much less fun. 

    I think the only change that could work off the top of my head would be to scrap the concept of using an opposing hero altogether.  I can imagine an interesting "PVP" mode would be a standard survivaly type map and team vs a single overseer style player who is given a currency pool to spawn enemies over the course of several waves that players would have to react to on the fly since it is not predetermined.  A top down camera over a map that can scan freely and pop up menus on the various doors for spawning would likely be all that is minimally required.  Considering that this would use identical mechanics to what is currently in game as far as enemies is concerned, I would presume the only balancing would be around how to allow a player to actually spawn enemies in each wave.  As far as I can tell, wouldn't a player spawning enemy waves but not directly controlling the minions, mercenaries, or bosses be fairly easy to balance in comparison?  I'd say designing the interface would be the most daunting task outside of patching up maps' ugly areas for a floating camera that normally can't be seen.  Think of it as almost kind of like an RTS in a way.  Does anyone think this is an interesting idea?
  • JacowboyJacowboy Member, Early Access
    Teck said:
     style player who is given a currency pool to spawn enemies over the course of several waves that players would have to react to on the fly since it is not predetermined. 
    That's what sabotage is supposed to be, in short.

    As for you idea, specifically, no, it wouldn't work that well, because it'd devolve into: Overseer sending the hardest to kill minions and cade destroyers all of the time. Also, it's not that fun to play overseer.

    At this point I'd rather Sabotage got redesigned a bit, to make it more interesting.
  • Teck said:
    ShadeDev said:

    I'm just not convinced that there are any changes we could make to have fixed siege.  I fundamentally believe that players don't want another MOBA-like game right now.

    Does that mean that siege could have been converted into a completely different PvP game?  Yes, it could have.  However, it would have still had the largest problem...  Designing heroes for siege and survival makes both modes much less fun. 

    I think the only change that could work off the top of my head would be to scrap the concept of using an opposing hero altogether.  I can imagine an interesting "PVP" mode would be a standard survivaly type map and team vs a single overseer style player who is given a currency pool to spawn enemies over the course of several waves that players would have to react to on the fly since it is not predetermined.  A top down camera over a map that can scan freely and pop up menus on the various doors for spawning would likely be all that is minimally required.  Considering that this would use identical mechanics to what is currently in game as far as enemies is concerned, I would presume the only balancing would be around how to allow a player to actually spawn enemies in each wave.  As far as I can tell, wouldn't a player spawning enemy waves but not directly controlling the minions, mercenaries, or bosses be fairly easy to balance in comparison?  I'd say designing the interface would be the most daunting task outside of patching up maps' ugly areas for a floating camera that normally can't be seen.  Think of it as almost kind of like an RTS in a way.  Does anyone think this is an interesting idea?
    THIS
    I had never even thought of an rts esque mode!
    Any mode that allows me to make my own waves would be great in my opinion
    I just REALLY want to be able to use my consumable minions and actually SEE them in effect
    "Remember! Gnoll dont have a union, when you harm a gnoll, it has no insurance!"
  • Jacowboy said:
    Teck said:
     style player who is given a currency pool to spawn enemies over the course of several waves that players would have to react to on the fly since it is not predetermined. 
    That's what sabotage is supposed to be, in short.

    As for you idea, specifically, no, it wouldn't work that well, because it'd devolve into: Overseer sending the hardest to kill minions and cade destroyers all of the time. Also, it's not that fun to play overseer.

    At this point I'd rather Sabotage got redesigned a bit, to make it more interesting.
    I actually based this concept off an old Half-Life mod I used to play a long time ago, but I forgot what it was called.  It was a linear level where several players would try to get to the end while avoiding traps and enemies that an "overseer" would trigger along the way when they deemed it opportune, but the had finite resources to work with.  This prevented them from spamming the hardest thing back to back.  I used to have a lot of fun with it.  I can see the problems of sending nothing but the toughest enemies and barricade breakers, but in a game like this where ther is already inherently a system breaking the enemy execution down to separate waves and doors I think it could be balanced.  We use currency to purchase traps of varying costs based off of usefulness, so I don't see why it couldn't be opperated similarly on the flip side.  You state that it wouldn't work well, so could you elaborate?  Maybe I'm missing something.
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.