I just would like to put this thought up for discussion and apologize if it's redundant. however the new castle sieges being all in the same time slot at the same day is not working out. not at all. castle sieges have changed to sleepy times. literally. our clan and both allies today where signed at three different sieges. all three for defense. we where just basically waiting there for anyone to show up after initially all the farmers where killed.
waiting for two hours, until finally one group showed up to attack, died and never came back.
having castle sieges at different times IMHO was an asset to the servers, because there was just more action. let me point out the difference: clans would capture the castle they needed/desired and at the next siege being able to assist or help their alliance or simply grief other clans. it was a lot more fun. nowadays the top PVP clans and two smaller ones have a castle and simply sit in it and hoping for someone being stupid enough to attack.
there is simply all the fun taken out of it.
now one more thing i want to point out (for the PVE clans as well): all the fame points, clan rep points for skills, items, etc are all based on times when we had territory wars and TWO castle sieges. now you can only farm in one and your "fame gain" is reduced down to a third. (example dyes you can buy at fort, if i remember right they are 680k fame for the top dye today you can get 60k fame per siege i think, so that's then arround 114 sieges to obtain a set of 10! so at 26 sieges per year it will take you then "only" roughly 4.5 yrs = FOUR AND A HALF YEARS! ). ... so something has to change for sure. also at this point i am not even pointing out the new siege related quests, etc...
what i would like to see is to get the second siege going again, split them as they where at 13:00 and 17:00 CST or even move to saturday (all your Euro, Russian, etc players will appreciate that because for most of the server atm it's 0:00-2:00 on a sunday when they have to go work on the next monday morning).
otherwise if you decide to keep them as is i suggest to triple the fame and clan rep amount gained. or reduce the costs for items, skills, etc by half to one third.
i am however convinced that when you put only one siege time in place you took all the fun out of it and its turned into a game of waiting for the siege to be over.
best regards
FM
PS: i put this up for poll, hoping that some will take the time for it
I'm totally agree with this, i'm european player and like the old siege system and i'm pretty sure that a lot of people would want to set it back as it was on the past.
A lot more people could farm it, as moncea says, european, rusian, and so on and it will be much more funny cause people will start fighting again for castles
I think it was ok, but fame required should be slashed in half and fame obtained should be doubled. Not only are you missing 1 castle siege, but also a territory war. Probably pretty soon we can buy fame in the store :p
What I liked?
1. less siege which usually is just a boring ranger fest between OP 'top' clans (who also now carry OP PVP Cloaks). If there is no more fair play then don't be surprised if people just lay death and farm fame.
2. these clans cared more for their own castle and 'gifting' a castle becomes harder. The fights at minor castles where interesting. If people think they ll have a small chance, then they will come. But isn't it like that in real war, you have to decide how much of your forces to keep for defense and how much you can spare to help your allies.
Then new sieges being all at the same time prevent clans from just feeding alt clans castles. (Or it helps prevent it now.)
If the sieges are to quiet, then why doesn't you clan, leave your castles siege grounds, and attack other castles for fun?
Heck 1st weekend of the new sieges my clan went and attacked 4 castles for fun.
Last weekend we didnt care about the castle we had, and just went to anothers to have fun. (Without signing on main clan at any.)
It's up to clans to keep a server alive or not.
If all clans hold hands and say "I wont attack you if you dont attack me" then the pvp is dead.
If clans just go to have fun and such, pvp is more likely going to survive.
2. these clans cared more for their own castle and 'gifting' a castle becomes harder. The fights at minor castles where interesting. If people think they ll have a small chance, then they will come. But isn't it like that in real war, you have to decide how much of your forces to keep for defense and how much you can spare to help your allies.
Actually what we did the 1st siege we attacked other castle when we didnt want to lose ours was:
We left 2-3 party's of clannies at our castle, and attacked 4 other castles with 4 partys. (All of the 4ptys not at castle had SOE castle on them.)
Then new sieges being all at the same time prevent clans from just feeding alt clans castles. (Or it helps prevent it now.)
If the sieges are to quiet, then why doesn't you clan, leave your castles siege grounds, and attack other castles for fun?
Heck 1st weekend of the new sieges my clan went and attacked 4 castles for fun.
Last weekend we didnt care about the castle we had, and just went to anothers to have fun. (Without signing on main clan at any.)
It's up to clans to keep a server alive or not.
If all clans hold hands and say "I wont attack you if you dont attack me" then the pvp is dead.
If clans just go to have fun and such, pvp is more likely going to survive.
Actually what we did the 1st siege we attacked other castle when we didnt want to lose ours was:
We left 2-3 party's of clannies at our castle, and attacked 4 other castles with 4 partys. (All of the 4ptys not at castle had SOE castle on them.)
just for the record, so nothing changed for you because you where doing that before already and its got nothing to do with preventing to feed alt castles, right? actually this way i believe it would be easier to dominate the castles because sooner or later some alliance will do that, because it simply got easier to now dominate more than one castle (and the only way to get them would be the entire server to ally up against the one dominant alliance - happened on kain this way before and will happen again). as you said 3 parties stay at your "home" and 4 wander around to kill. now with the new changes you can even port freely to sieged towns and dont even have to worry about getting the troops to where you need them.
however even in your clan on your server there is players online at different times, right?
so why not give everyone a fair chance to participate in a siege at a different time so more players can have fun? and if your clan is big enough to harbor 8 active parties, well then that way with 2 different sieges you'd be able to dominate even more, just think about it...
so for example let's say you play on chronos and the sieges are at 17:00 CDT (servertime). if you are a euro player then your siegetime is at midnight to 2am instead of in the early evening. if you are from russia then its even worse. please dont get me wrong, i am not criticizing the siege times we all voted on. my points are about removing one of the siege times and fight it out all at the same time that got the least votes. also about fame that just got cut in half AGAIN (after TW removal).
so to be honest with you mishikotoko, if its really like you say it is then two different siege times should profit your clan even more...