I'm curious to see if this happens on any other server.
It use to be that people would actually sign up if they were attacking. You could go to the siege sign up guys and compare defenders vs attackers and speculate who was going to win based on how many were signed up. Like "oh man there are 9 defenders and 20 attacking clans! This will be interesting".
I can't remember when the last time was this happened though. Now what everyone does is sign up ONE "holding" clan with one or only a handful of members. They then show up with a mass zerg that you don't know about ahead of time (at least not from the siege guy) to hustle in the scriber to take the castle.
I guess from an attackers perspective this works out alright because there's no arguing WHO gets the castle, since only one nobody holding clan can scribe in the first place. There's no battles at the relic. I guess it's a similar tactic to signing up a ton of clans at one castle but attacking another.
Does this happen at other servers? Do you think it's a valid (meaning, how sieges were meant to be played) siege tactic?
Strategy relies as much on bringing your force to where it counts as it does on not letting the enemy know about that time and place until the last possible moment.
So, yes, this is a very valid strategy. Intelligence warfare, basically.
Why not change all the siege stuff so that ONLY people registed as defender OR attacker can kill and get NO PENALTY in the siege area.
Meaning people who ar not registerd will go RED if ther kill a player of the attacking or defending teams/clans.
Offcurse people in siege can Freely KILL ANYONE in the siege area.
and then we have or gona get intresting fights :) cus i see more clans turn on one and other then anything els. I hope you all under stand my point ;)
Yep I can see that. I think that's why people use the alt clans to capture the castle too. There's so many sieges per day though, if you own two castles it gets hard to defend especially if you have no idea who is going to show up.
You could also have it where if you don't sign up for the seige and you enter the seige area, you get ported to a town. And if you sign up to attack one castle but go to another the same thing happens with the porting.
We went through a time like this.. then defenders got wise and started signing up their entire defense even if there was only 1 clan on the attacker list.
Not being signed up does put the attackers at a major disadvantage because of having to run back to the siege. The defenders should be able to put the smackdown on them if they do it right, or if the numbers are even close.
If the numbers aren't that close, then it wouldn't have mattered whether they all signed up or not.
If people are doing this to you, look up the clan leaders of the few clans signed up, have all defenders make a /target macro and repeatedly kill those few people. That's all you have to do to win.. keep those 2 guys or whatever, off the siege field. simple ;)
Yep that's what we've been doing. It just seems a little odd that people would want to do this, like if you had a clan hall you wouldn't do that because you'd want many characters to use the benefits, not just one scrub dwarf or something. But a castle you can benefit from even if it's a one man clan. Seems weird.
on ERICA..SP runs this, but thats cause they are one huge ally, and all of the oppossers are too stupid to stay on one castle.
so they spread them selfs out exuberly and end up loseing over time.(adventuely they lose the castle, lose clans from allys..and so on)
that + they don't set the times for mornings so all battles are late afternoon to late night. so after words every one is too tired to go work off karma or gain back some XP that was lost.
I think that any clan that isn't singed to atk or defend a castle should not be alowed on the field period. any person thats not in a clan shouldn't be alowed on the field eather.(that would stop spys from siting by your flags,dead or alive)
It's a valid strategy, as is signing with full force to a castle and then attacking another one >.>
Sieging is about tactics, about secret attackers, secret deals and all such. Changing the system would take all the nice political aspects and espionage opeations out of the game and make sieges more dull. Sieges are fine as they are.
Seems to me the penalty for not signing up is built in to the system (i.e. the long boring run with no rez).
Therefore it's more than fair if people want to handicap themselves for an element of quasi-surprise.
Seems to me the penalty for not signing up is built in to the system (i.e. the long boring run with no rez).
Therefore it's more than fair if people want to handicap themselves for an element of quasi-surprise.
As far as I know you still get the reduces xp loss on death on the siege grounds, even if you're not signed up, right? They should take that out, too. If you had a full death penalty without even being able to get a 20% res, people would think twice...
Sounds like the other servers caught up to what was happening on Kain early to mid c3. Essentially, the alliances would sign up various places, no idea who is actually going to attack where. Entire alliance shows up to the least defended castle, zergs it, breaks down the doors and kills the crystals. Repeat rushes if needed. Leave the castle shattered but untaken, then proceed to attack another castle. If the defenders recieve support from the defenders of other castles, switch castles. In the last 15 minutes, pick a castle and attempt to scribe. Leaving the defenders no time to retake the castle with its weakened doors etc. During a normal seige, all seigers that day could be porting as much as 5-10 times over 2 hours. Long boring run? Learn your valid ports and port zones ;) Oh, and I don't know if this strategy is only valid on Kain due to its highly polarized politics.
Sounds about right. I'm not complaining, just interested in if this is what the designers had in mind. If you aren't signed up, it does seem a bit off that you still get the reduced death penalty. BUT I imagine they have to do that because castle owners cannot sign up to defend (is it attack too? I forget) other castles, and they might need to.
Sounds about right. I'm not complaining, just interested in if this is what the designers had in mind. If you aren't signed up, it does seem a bit off that you still get the reduced death penalty. BUT I imagine they have to do that because castle owners cannot sign up to defend (is it attack too? I forget) other castles, and they might need to.
You stated one of the reasons an alliance or clan might use an alt clan to hold the castle.
The fact is, holding a castle doesn't really do [censored] for the clan that owns it. You get no buffs from it, you can't buy stuff from it like a clan hall, all it really let's you do is port to it and from it and wander around looking at the pretty pictures. Woopdie doo.
On the other hand, the clan that owns the castle cannot sign up for any of the clan hall contests, and they cannot sign up to attack or defend another castle.
On the other side of things, I don't know about ya'lls servers, but on Gustin, clans don't own castles.. alliances do. IMO it always creates a bit of friction within an alliance as to which clan is actually going to be the owners. We chose to go with an Alt clan, and switch around peoples alts into the clan so that everyone can enjoy opening and closing the doors and looking at the pretty pictures.
I think that about sums it up from my point of view. :)
we were a small alliance our 3 clans signed up with 0 chance of winning the defenders ddent take us seirousley but we had a huge zerg just go in and kamakize against the defenders and jinjaed the casle it works if no ones expecting it
Yep, people want to own it but don't always realize what a pain it is to maintain the manor and such. I've been in clans that have owned Dion, Giran, and Oren. Other than being able to SOE to castle, I never really saw the benefit of having it (ie, new equipment didn't come raining out of the skies). ... other than I do like defending.