24v24 seiges

[Geldour]

24vs24 can only be enjoyable if the buildings are equaly nerfed to a lower tier like t1 or max t2.

but more then that without valid rewards, via simple quests it wont be played.

should have multiple objective quests:

1 quest to get kills updating raidwide
1 quest to break several building and burn them
1 quest to participate
1 quest to win defense or invasion

should drop the new victory token from winning defense or offense quest.

thay already admited quests can be easily added, i thinks its about time they add some to sieges so they are played.

if we start asking for more things it gets too overwhelming for funcom, baby steps.
edit- meh nvm, seem speople like the 35v15 seiges, people are so scared of any form of a challange in games these days its depressing.

[Spreadicus]

if we start asking for more things it gets too overwhelming for funcom, baby steps.
edit- meh nvm, seem speople like the 35v15 seiges, people are so scared of any form of a challange in games these days its depressing.

Sieges are 48v 48 . 36v36 could be fun.I get why you made this thread and ill say this much. The only reason they bring more numbers than us is spartan in a word. He refuses to accept any outside help to siege with few exceptions. and when the prospect is brought up the elitist attitude pops out and he says no. I tell him that even trash players can be useful in a siege..Its the epitome of zerg pvp. It requires numbers to be successful. So until we recruit more pvpers to guild or make nice with a similar guild its going to be everyone vs us. We "could" ask for assistance but lets face facts. That isnt happening.


Suck it up old friend. Walk it off, Change your tampon.. etc etc

Besides.. I thought you like a challenge after all?

[Unutterable]

I suggested on testlive that battlekeeps no longer be guild-owned objects, but signable events, either 12 v 12 or 24 v24, with buildings adjusted in health accordingly, with BK buffs being a reward buff for a given amount of time, with quests added just like minigames.

I know I'd sign for at least one JS-duration seige a day for a chance at a 12 or 24 hour BK buff.

[Spreadicus]

The devs who coded the siege system (gaute) are no longer at funcom. The curent team is scared to touch it and they said as much.. its a horrific mess of code and they dont have the resources to do it.. contrary to what my esteemed colleague geldy may think it is not a 5 min fix to make such changes. it could quite literally take up alot of time and manpower.


In short forget about it... at least for now.

[Kellisia]

Funcom, reduce the seiges to raid v raid ( 24v24)

No guild can form 48, ever. Servers couldnt handle it even if we could.

Also, by making it 24v24 it would make seiges happen way way more often as it would mean that alot more guilds could actually seige.

15v24 is possible to win, 15v35 however.. not so much.

Get with the times funcom.

http://strawpoll.me/1931684

I agree with this.

I don't think the calculated Bks is enough though to support the amount of guilds with in the game either.

[Religolibri]

Non targetable buildings should be the first thing to adjust. Do it now !

[Suctum]

What they need to do is downsize 2 of the keeps in Aquilonian and Cimmerian End, and downsize one in Border to Kush.

Make these tower sieges where max is 24v24, keep one keep in each zone 48v48. Reduce the size and amount of buildings towers have as opposed to keep and reduce the health of t2/t3 buildings, walls, and gatehouses for the towers.

This means smaller guilds could compete for a set number (small scale sieging), while large scale sieging would mean only one guild could a normal size BK, which means you would need a rather large guild to do so. Make it so if you own a BK, you cannot declare and can only defend. But by owning a tower, you can declare or defend, and guilds without anything could do the same. Make it so a guild has to hold a tower first before being able to declare on a keep. This would add tiers to sieging where very small guilds could go for towers, small to medium guilds could hold them, and large guilds would be faced with numerous other guilds potentially allying or merging to take on a main keep guild.

This makes it totally viable for multiple sides rather than just two as why would any guild NAP for a single guild to control the best BK, instead they would temporarily do so and dissolve quickly keeping constant activity. Large guilds could only defend which means holding a BK would ultimately be hard to do since it would be every tower holder against you. This would force multiple smaller guilds to team up against larger guilds, and gives all the declaring action to the small guilds and people who have neither keep or tower.

Problem solved for both sides of the argument. Good luck with someone coding any of that.

[Religolibri]

That's really a great idea.
*added to the "to do list", after craft revamp :sunglasses:*