I agree implementation was not perfect by any means, but I think its great content that can be "easily" fixed to correct some of the errors in the upgrade/repair system etc.
I'm curious what others think needs to be improved?
NOT INCLUDING:
Better matchmaking
Better rewards
In-game chat improvements
"Make it fair for inactive clans..." lol
Please don't give them these ideas. 🤣
That was my initial reaction upon reading it as well
I agree implementation was not perfect by any means, but I think its great content that can be "easily" fixed to correct some of the errors in the upgrade/repair system etc.
I'm curious what others think needs to be improved?
NOT INCLUDING:
Better matchmaking
Better rewards
In-game chat improvements
"Make it fair for inactive clans..." lol
Well, in my clan, 6 players with 7 accounts do show interest in taking part in a Siege.
If you do the math, you quickly realize the problem these players have.
At the same time we are in the same clan for more than some years and basically do not want to switch clans.
How about the proposal to split the Siege?
Bronze Siege with 3-10 players taking part?
Silver level with 11-20 players taking part
Gold level with 21-30 players taking part?
Adjust the size of the fortress and probably rewards as well and than some more small clans could take part.
*Cough*Getridofredbuttom*cough*
Well, in my clan, 6 players with 7 accounts do show interest in taking part in a Siege.
If you do the math, you quickly realize the problem these players have.
At the same time we are in the same clan for more than some years and basically do not want to switch clans.
How about the proposal to split the Siege?
Bronze Siege with 3-10 players taking part?
Silver level with 11-20 players taking part
Gold level with 21-30 players taking part?
Adjust the size of the fortress and probably rewards as well and than some more small clans could take part.
*Cough*Getridofredbuttom*cough*
What did Fred Buttom ever do to you? 😁
What did Fred Buttom ever do to you? 😁
😂
Well, in my clan, 6 players with 7 accounts do show interest in taking part in a Siege.
If you do the math, you quickly realize the problem these players have.
At the same time we are in the same clan for more than some years and basically do not want to switch clans.
How about the proposal to split the Siege?
Bronze Siege with 3-10 players taking part?
Silver level with 11-20 players taking part
Gold level with 21-30 players taking part?
Adjust the size of the fortress and probably rewards as well and than some more small clans could take part.
*Cough*Getridofredbuttom*cough*
Obviously this will never happen...
Plarium doing something to discourage engagement? 😆
Honestly, adding use attack scrolls (I'd prefer win a siege attack) to the DAILY/Weekly (when active & >0) SHOULD happen imo.
Obviously this will never happen...
Plarium doing something to discourage engagement? 😆
Honestly, adding use attack scrolls (I'd prefer win a siege attack) to the DAILY/Weekly (when active & >0) SHOULD happen imo.
Interesting...but how will this work?
If the clan is not taking part in the siege...this mission will not occur.
If the Siege is not active...this mission will not occur and therefor will not entice players to place Defensive teams
If the Clan is active in Siege, the players to whom this mission can occur (htose wohl placed defensive teams) are already active in Siege...
So basically, the placement of 'Use attack scrolls' will not change anything if placed in daily missions.
It will only further the split and anger in Clans who are not interested in Siege or do not enough players if placed in weekly missions. I for example would be extremely annoyed if this appears in my weekly quests and I for god's sake cannot do anything to achieve this as it would be dependant on others....
how about fixing the red dot that is there in the bastion from seige already. Do not need this evwry single time i log in, im aware siege is there and counting down and no I dont care.
That was my initial reaction upon reading it as well
Right? Seems like something they'd jump on.
What did Fred Buttom ever do to you? 😁
It's too late at night for me to Google who this is.
It's too late at night for me to Google who this is.
matrim: *Cough*Getridofredbuttom*cough*
Moored: What did Fred Buttom ever do to you
Not a person, just a joke based on a combination of a misreading and a typo
matrim: *Cough*Getridofredbuttom*cough*
Moored: What did Fred Buttom ever do to you
Not a person, just a joke based on a combination of a misreading and a typo
More like ShortOnReadingComprehension, amirite
More like ShortOnReadingComprehension, amirite
More than likely you're right
matrim: *Cough*Getridofredbuttom*cough*
Moored: What did Fred Buttom ever do to you
Not a person, just a joke based on a combination of a misreading and a typo
Ahh I see it now
I've been trying to think of how this could be fixed, and ultimately I think they just need to completely re-do how assignment of teams works, both on defense and on offense. I get that they're trying to encourage more involvement at the clan level, but the game simply is NOT designed for that to be practical, for so many reasons (*cough* chat system *cough*).
Instead what I would do is - for the defense side, have every player in the clan create two defense teams, and then have the clan leader/deputies assign those defense teams as they see fit. Similarly, for the resources, have all of the contributions of the players automatically be pooled, and have the leader/deputies assign them, instead of individual players. Realistically, this part of Siege is the least relevant for an individual anyway.
Over on the offense side, I think they should retain the interactiveness as far as combat is concerned - I don't think these should just automatically be resolved. But, I also think that choosing the fights individually is a bad idea, because participation is definitely not easy to either enforce or entice. What I would do instead is, similarly to the defense side, have each player in the clan come up with up to X offense teams - not sure the exact number, since I still haven't figured out how the mana tower rebattle system works. Then, the leader/deputies will pick from those teams and assign them to battle against specific enemy teams.
Once the team is assigned for battle, that player would get a notification ingame - maybe one of our favorite red icons or whatever - to indicate that they have a battle they need to fight. They'd have a certain amount of time to fight that battle - say, four hours from when it is assigned - after which the fight would just be fought automatically.
Gonna bump this up once, since it seems to have got lost in the chatter :)
Gonna bump this up once, since it seems to have got lost in the chatter :)
Well, I agree completely with the defense and pooled resources part
But I just don't see the offense part being feasible. For it to work you'd need to have a level of coordination and communication that just isn't in the game, and if it *were,* then you wouldn't need to change how offense works
The idea on the offense part is to try to bridge the two sides. The total duration of Siege is only two days to begin with, and the nature of Siege is such that you can't assign battles "ahead of time", since you need to clear the earlier stages/fights first.
Now, this could be solved in another way by just changing the actual times. I have no idea why Plarium thinks you need *two weeks* for defense planning, and only two days on offese. Flip those around, and then you can give each fight a day, maybe even two to be resolved before switching it to auto.
Agree on defensive assignments bit disagree on offense. Has to be some level of engagement.
And the 2 days to do the battles (basically classic arena battles is plenty). It's not about "needing" 2 weeks to setup its about only doing siege fir a few minutes each fortnight.
Agree on defensive assignments bit disagree on offense. Has to be some level of engagement.
And the 2 days to do the battles (basically classic arena battles is plenty). It's not about "needing" 2 weeks to setup its about only doing siege fir a few minutes each fortnight.
You can still only do siege for a few minutes each fortnight. Changing it from two battle and 14 setup to 14 battle and two setup still means the same amount of time spent in Siege.
And, again, on offense, with my suggestion, the players are still the ones doing the actual fighting. It just means that you don't have people just wasting their teams in the wrong places.
You can still only do siege for a few minutes each fortnight. Changing it from two battle and 14 setup to 14 battle and two setup still means the same amount of time spent in Siege.
And, again, on offense, with my suggestion, the players are still the ones doing the actual fighting. It just means that you don't have people just wasting their teams in the wrong places.
Seems worse having to coordinate everyones 2 minutes over 10+ days then 2... I could see extending to a 3rd day just for rebattles only
