Feedback: City Siege

[Sulorie]

What happened to REALM PRIDE? What happened to the way this game should be played? What happened to HONOR, DIGNITY, ALLIANCES, FRIENDSHIPS, LOYALTY? Where are this values at? All lost for some rewards?

Realm pride is a concept used by those, who want to justify playing on the bigger side, to get easy wins. No matter how lopsided a server is, they want to keep it this way and ignore, that their behaviour only leads to people quitting the game.

You can roleplay as much as you want. This isn't reality and as a videogame you have to ensure, that both sides have fun.

[Acidic]

.....words....My war band have destroyed PnP...more words.....

Fake news is the only answer

[flintboth]

Grunbe have a permanent little red skull above his head.

[Acidic]

Grunbe have a permanent little red skull above his head.

We try to leave him as a sacrifice. Let him get in front of us and as soon as he says charge we step back . Always fun to see
Ok fake news we’re to scared of him to do this

[cleanharry030]

Hello fellow players,

I would like to add my 2 Cents. From the perspective of a "closed guildwarband player" and also from my experience as a pug leader for quite some time i can only say that the time needed as a warband leader to push from possibly T2 to Forts and City is just too much. When i was leading pugs there were only Forts and maybe you would put 3-4 hours into pushing one of them, but with the increase in player numbers and now even city sieges you would have to invest a full working day or more. I'm personally not willing to spend so much time with a lot of stress just hoping that you somehow manage to maintain a decent 2-2-2 warband until you reach the enemy city.

On the other hand since i joined 7th Legion i began enjoying this game for a very different reason. Which is fighting other premade warbands. I don't enjoy rallying all forces (again leading warbands and maybe even zone efforts can be incredibly stressful) for the sake of getting the latest gear (almost all characters i geared so far with Invader for example i did mostly on my own or with a small guild grp). There is a constant clash of mentalities in this game, even during live. Some people play for progression others for the sake of fighting. Sometimes both allign and sometimes not.

Should players be rewarded for staying through a campaign progression until they reach the enemy city ? I would say yes of course but if the population is so heavily unbalanced that at some point the underdog would forfeit because they don't see any chance of winning (look at NA Destro population vs Order) i would certainly not encourage the Devs of promoting it by handing out empty city siege instances with 0 effort from attackers despite the fact that they may have been pushing it all the way from T2 to City.

I will take time and think about this some more and i guess all of you do the same. Maybe there is a solution so everyone can enjoy their way of playing this awesome game.

Shoutout to P&P for all the awesome fights !

[Alfa1986]

I think the Devs have made the right decision, you can't force people to play one side or another. But you can make over populating one side to farm gear harder. I say make the spoils reflect the aao. Even more rewards to those who fight against the zerg. The bigger the zerg the more rewards to the defenders.

Why? you can force. it’s just that if the population of one side is several times larger than the other (as an example, 2-3 times), then a person who wants to play for the overpopulated side will have a chose: or gets in line untill someone log off, or immediately loads to the less populated side.

[xpander]

my few ideas into the pool of lots of ideas.

make overpopulated side need to push 3 fort locks to get into the city
make underpopulated side needt to push 1 fort lock to get into the city
and when both sides are within 7% of population, make it require 2 fort locks

now this can ofc bring a lot of other issues. like the underpopuled side has to wait more for other side to lock the forts to get into the city.

and maybe make it require 1 fort lock when the population is high (EU prime time) say 500+ people.. ofc when the realms are balanced in numbers

i would also suggest reducing rewards from city for the defending side, even if they win the stage in city. they are still defenders and lost the zones. That ofc can again bring issues and defenders might not want to play, but slightly reduced rewards shouldnt be too much of an issue. forts could use same treatment.

those might be terrible ideas though, that ofc would need testing.

[Alfa1986]

Unfortunately, this problem cannot be solved at all. in order to get new equipment you need to arrange a city siege, the fastest way is when one side refuses to fight, and the other without resistance to capture all the zones and the fort. the system encourages that one side to simply give up until the city siege sets in to obtain royal crests for new equipment, becouse there is no an opportunity to get it another way.

if people payed close attention to state of realm and the numbers... you already saw this behaviour previously with t2 being dead, t3 being dead, t4 middle being semi active, and if one side gets momentum and servely outnumbers the other , the numbers just keep going up and up and zerg to fort for invader farm... forts use to kill server pop when campaign reset, no progression for people they avoid t2/t3...

I've seen 100+ people appear on destro just because they got a sniff that potential fort was on the cards and destro had momentum...

Cities will magnify this as like you said end game gear is behind a wall, but that is the way it is... and people will be bitterly disappointed if they always pick to play the side with the most numbers when there is little opposition...

its like some people here never played on live or are totally ignorant of the issues of Tilted servers and are too blinded by how shiny new loot is.

We have one server, dev's will do their best to keep it as fairly balanced as possible without it being tilted... tilted servers kill the game... Zerg fan boys need to understand that. Server health comes before loot. If you tilt the server, you kill the one sides community (both sides need each other, and underdog needs more zergers to swap sides... the more that swap sides the more people will get a instance and the shiny loot they crave)... what good is your loot if you have no one to fight against and use it versus? Common sense and logic seem to be missing when new loot is applied.

I agree with everything that you wrote.

[Sengirv]

what about higher aao or rr per hour increased for defenders. But if they lose less rewards? And Attackers less Aao or rr but still get better loot. After 1 side has a zone or two till siege, thats when the switching sides lock out timer kicks on. But untill siege gets done. That would make it so if the zone doesnt get flipped, then you wont get to switch sides, but if you do, theres no downside.

[Secrets]

Please Lock this post or delete it.