Recent Topics

Ads

Feedback: City Siege

Let's talk about... everything else
User avatar
Wam
Posts: 803

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#11 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:56 am

Natherul wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:42 am this was already discussed way before the release. We said we wont allow empty instances to be made so you cant get free loot.

This means that zerging on one side will mean some people wont be able to enter as there wont be any opposition for them.
good call... or zerging will get even more out of hand than it currently is

Dev's have to draw a line in the sand somewhere... 200 vs 100 is not fun for pugs... shouldnt be fun for organised either if you are on the heavy pop side...

Play both sides, play underdog and you will get rewarded... zerg and you run the risk of no reward... that seems the best case solution out of all the possible alternatives ... or NA is going to be serverly imbalanced in the future with the rest of world players taking path of least resistance and overstacking a side to victory even more than currently happens.
Wamizzle Guild Leader [TUP]
Wamizzle Guild Leader [The Unlikely Plan]

Ads
zak68
Posts: 394

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#12 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:57 am

what about filling empty instances with ch22 mobs (reinforcements gating in or landing by ship), a final reward of seals and no roll ?

User avatar
DokB
Posts: 538

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#13 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:14 am

Would it be possible to change how the queuing works for City siege?
Instead of dropping from queue when 1 person leaves WB/disconnects/whatever, make it so that you only drop queue if the WB leader drops. Today our WB lost our chance at queuing for city on Destro because we had multiple instances where people left/DC and we were forced to requeue and presumably we got put at the back of queue for city (despite being one of the 1st WB that arrived and queued up in Reikwald).
Zoggof - Black Orc
Doinks - Ironbreaker
Leatherman - Blackguard

User avatar
Onemantankwall
Posts: 523

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#14 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:15 am

Wam wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:56 am
Natherul wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:42 am this was already discussed way before the release. We said we wont allow empty instances to be made so you cant get free loot.

This means that zerging on one side will mean some people wont be able to enter as there wont be any opposition for them.
good call... or zerging will get even more out of hand than it currently is

Dev's have to draw a line in the sand somewhere... 200 vs 100 is not fun for pugs... shouldnt be fun for organised either if you are on the heavy pop side...

Play both sides, play underdog and you will get rewarded... zerg and you run the risk of no reward... that seems the best case solution out of all the possible alternatives ... or NA is going to be serverly imbalanced in the future with the rest of world players taking path of least resistance and overstacking a side to victory even more than currently happens.
Maybe if eus wasnt on 3 am coatailing both order and destro :P (JOKING!!!)

it'll eventually balance out once people stop staying up 3 am to farm carrots.

tbh destro completely sped push zones just to reach city first so doubt ull be seeing city as early as 3am anymore maybe more 5-6ish.

This outcome has been known forever now zerg won't be given empty instances as loot pinatas maybe while qued should of took reikland and reikwald. You dont physically have to be at city gate once qued.
Lots of alts, more alts for the alt gods!

User avatar
Wdova
Posts: 682
Contact:

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#15 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:47 am

Natherul wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:42 am this was already discussed way before the release. We said we wont allow empty instances to be made so you cant get free loot.

This means that zerging on one side will mean some people wont be able to enter as there wont be any opposition for them.
Even I understood the flustration of attacking side and nearly feel theyr dissapointment, I agree that this implementation should really stop one side zerging, because if everything is zergable, it will endup as on live(one side servers).

I strongly suggest to roll both sides and whenever one side start to zerging, log underdog to enjoy AAO and/or more balanced fights
Pigbutcher - Choppa RR80+
Cyplenkov - Marauder RR80+
Vdova - Witch elf RR80+

Hajzl - Swordmaster RR80+
Roznetka - Engineer RR70+

Panodil
Posts: 337

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#16 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:49 am

Just one problem with people should not zerg.
Taking zones with even numbers are not happening atm. Might be better with more guilds now with city.
Panodil WP
Panodill DoK
Panodilz Zealot
Panodilr Runepriest
Run Shaman
Panage Archmage

User avatar
thefryinallofus
Posts: 51

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#17 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:55 am

Image

Image
Bloodroote (78 DOK) | Blackroot (81 BG) | Shadowroot (73 SORC)
Image

User avatar
Wam
Posts: 803

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#18 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:57 am

Onemantankwall wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:15 am
Wam wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:56 am
Natherul wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:42 am this was already discussed way before the release. We said we wont allow empty instances to be made so you cant get free loot.

This means that zerging on one side will mean some people wont be able to enter as there wont be any opposition for them.
good call... or zerging will get even more out of hand than it currently is

Dev's have to draw a line in the sand somewhere... 200 vs 100 is not fun for pugs... shouldnt be fun for organised either if you are on the heavy pop side...

Play both sides, play underdog and you will get rewarded... zerg and you run the risk of no reward... that seems the best case solution out of all the possible alternatives ... or NA is going to be serverly imbalanced in the future with the rest of world players taking path of least resistance and overstacking a side to victory even more than currently happens.
Maybe if eus wasnt on 3 am coatailing both order and destro :P (JOKING!!!)

it'll eventually balance out once people stop staying up 3 am to farm carrots.

tbh destro completely sped push zones just to reach city first so doubt ull be seeing city as early as 3am anymore maybe more 5-6ish.

This outcome has been known forever now zerg won't be given empty instances as loot pinatas maybe while qued should of took reikland and reikwald. You dont physically have to be at city gate once qued.
hahahaha Ive played both sides, i know how it is, i know i was super outnumbered on order one night in two forts and got 0 invader for defending... despite solo tank walling top of ramp in lords for a minute against continous sea of red... and then i've also pug lead in na time and mt'd a couple times... and I see familar names from EU there too and new NA names i got more use too. But i don't make thread about where is my invader like i am entitled when things bug out or you been so outnumbered and wasn't completely ready to milk the contribution, sure frustrated because outnumbered and should of had a reward for doing the right thing but **** happens that is life and part of game...

I expect heavy pushing on campaign from some organised destro guilds... destro has better coverage generally, but if order have enough online they can stop them... but stopping them then they dont get new shiny reward/gear ... so there is alot of "gamesmanship" to be done... like how hard are people going to defend forts compared to previously when it was the end game... and how more frequent are zones going to be thrown or traded... will be interesting to see, its going to happen but on what scale. New gear sometimes brings out a resurgence in order also but don't think they can maintain it vs destro's coverage which ultimately demoralises them as a realm...

In ideal world wouldnt need to play order, but sometimes they need more numbers so instead of kick them when down, you need to close eyes and imagine order tanks look as cool as destro tanks and search for action.

What happens in the first 2 weeks doesnt matter with all the hype and training going on... its 2-3 weeks from now like you say when things die down and should get back to normal, what will that new normal look like, and how badly are loot hunters going to destabilize NA time than it currently is... are they going to continue to all stack destro and gamble for their chance of loot in city? then complain when they are the unlucky ones for chosing that fate.

220-100 is more than primetime EU has gotten recently on some nights...
Wamizzle Guild Leader [TUP]
Wamizzle Guild Leader [The Unlikely Plan]

Ads
User avatar
drmordread
Suspended
Posts: 916

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#19 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:11 am

Easy fix, and the devs dont have to do a thing. When you see the attacking realm have 200+ players in a zone, and defending realm has 100 players in a zone ....

It means that half of the attacking realm will not get a city instance.

SOLUTION
Log on to the defending realm
Image
Morrdread Ladydread Kickyerbutt Tamorrah Whisperrss SutSut Amniell
Lolyou Tahw Fortuna Sarissa Yiorrrgos
(and eight more to keep you guessing)

User avatar
Wam
Posts: 803

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#20 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:16 am

drmordread wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:11 am Easy fix, and the devs dont have to do a thing. When you see the attacking realm have 200+ players in a zone, and defending realm has 100 players in a zone ....

It means that half of the attacking realm will not get a city instance.

SOLUTION
Log on to the defending realm
Image
Wamizzle Guild Leader [TUP]
Wamizzle Guild Leader [The Unlikely Plan]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests