Seige Proposal & Rumor

I like the ideas but I highly doubt NC Austin has the manpower to implement half of it.

Far more likely, they will just disable the NPC... or redirect it to the first floor of each set.

I really hate doom-saying, but sieging is, and has been, dead for a long time on Dep. Castles are controlled politically rather than by force, and they aren't going to change because there simply aren't enough people left who care.

I also think something is needed for sieging to be more attractive to majority of population. One main problem in the current siege system (IMHO) is that same people can pretty much fight in every single siege. This leads in the situation where one pledge/alliance can easily hold all the castles with alternative characters as alliance royals when they have attained certain level of power, because the force can be usually concentrated in a siege or two at a time.

My suggestion to this problem has been for few years now, that all the sieges would happen at exact same time. It could be once a week thing, where siege time (of all castles) would be randomly picked by server for the weekend. The timeframe could be aimed for NA times if so wanted, but would not necessarily be needed because it's random after all and thus ain't giving advantage to anyone. So it would be like a little event at the weekend, when pledges can prepare for the sieges. The actual advantage in this would be, that now the pledges have to pick their frontier: same people cannot be effectively fightning for every castle. Basically strong pledges would go for the main castles, when smaller ones would have chances on the minor castles. Dominance of all the castles would require a lot bigger alliance and better diplomacy than in the current system, most likely resulting that there would not be such a strong alliance in our small servers who would be able to control all the castles.

Even this would not totally solve the current plague in the community's morale, when siege is not ended in the siege. But no siege system can really fix the fact, that nowadays lots of players sees it as a good strategy to keep harassing the sieging pledges in hunting grounds: something that was commonly thought as discrace and grief on the old days. This is another main problem in the current sieging, but I'm afraid the community morale is only going down, since after all these years mainly the people with high morale are the ones leaving the game when cheaters (obviously people with commonly low morale) bloom everywhere.

Still, I think this could be one solution to make the sieging more appealing to majority of people, when it kinda partially alleviates also the problem of the after-siege harassing: if this change in sieging system would make the sieging as common event kind of mass thing, then the alliance trying to dominate the castles by taking the sieges to normal game-playing has more difficult task since there's easily lots more pledges involved.

Anyways, the NPC suggestion could work too at some degree, even it does not solve the problem with same army fightning in every siege. The NPC armies were in game before in form of Ken Rauhel with his black knights and later as dark elf armies invading some of the castles, and even I do not siege too much because of the problems the system and community morale currently has, it could bring some random factor to the soup. So NCK could even add these two togheter, even if the single siegetime for all the castles would make sieging as mass event, it would not be necessarily needed. We cannot be sure if it turns out as a mass thing in the end tho, and if it would not, then the NPC interference could be a saving factor.

In the end I doubt anything will happen tho, I've been occasionally bringing up the suggestion of mine during few years and I see no hope for it as it would need NCK's attention. Maybe it has something to do with the server loads during sieges that this would not be even technically possible in Korea, but for NCA servers I do not see any reason why this could not work. But I assume we can all agree that sieging needs something to make it more appealing for masses, so now everyone put on your thinking cap and send suggestions and comments :)

--------------------------------------------
Have fun, but let others have too :)

I have also been a long time advocate of changes to the siege system, however my ideas are a bit different than those posted here.

I don't know that I have an opinion on NPCs taking the castles. Do you mean the way they did before that you had to kill them all before the end of the siege or like at Diad?

My big issue would be with the royal requirement. I fear it would actually lower the number of sieges because many pledges with players in different timezones or even countries would be prevented from sieging. Take my pledge for example. Our royal is in the U.K., but most of the pledge is in the U.S. That means for sieges either the royal would have to stay up until 3 a.m. his time to siege or enough people in the pledge would have to skip work/school to participate when he could be on.

I'm also not sure about making all the sieges at the same time. I like to siege. The more the better for me. Having them all at the same time would mean only one or two sieges a week ... unless I guess you also increased the number of sieges per week. I think the better answer is to randomize siege times. After each siege, have the server assign a time for the next siege. That way you cannot have pledges control sieges by setting the times when their primary enemies cannot be on. It would also help move the Diad siege so that other pledges can try to siege and take it.

Why dont they just do what they recently did in lineage 2, which is make it where a prince can declare war on a given castle/pledge at any time. so that the pledges that are always controlling key castles has to be aware that their castle can be attacked any time morning noon or night. some might say "well wouldnt that be unfair because all the attackers would have to do is figure out when the least amount of the pledge is on and attack then." well yeah but like real war..the enemy can attack at anytime. they dont have holidays off. so it just makes the attacking pledge have to be more tactical and if they defending pledge wants to hold their castle they have to be more tactical as well. and also nc could implement the alliance system so that a couple pledges could enter an alliance and attack as one and if one pledge in the alliance takes the castle..control would go to the leader of the alliance and he could choose whether control is handed to a supplementary pledge or kept in his control.

I thought Aden still (always has) got attacked during each siege, and must be defended each siege, or Ken and Cer take it back? Did they take that out?

The best fix is more random siege times. The castle owner should only be able to pick the day of the siege, not the time of the siege. The time should be randomized. As said above... Why is it that the defending pledge gets to choose when they want to be attacked? War isnt scheduled... War is random, war is when the attackers want the castle, not when the defenders say you can try and take it from them.

Without controlled siege times, there are not controlled sieges. If you want to hold a castle, get your people to play at the randomly chosen time. If you cant do that, someone that can, will, and will get your castle from you. Better luck next time.

Got Blog?

Having come back to Ken/Dep recently I can definitely attest to the fact that sieging is really a bygone thing to do in our servers. I don't know to what extent this is applicable to LoA but I do agree with your suggestions Papi. In Ken server for example I notice that castle control is effectively dead, the difference between current times and 1.5years ago is extreme. I still remember being in SLM and actually sieging/taking/holding castles against enemies. These days no one shows up and everyone stays in toi/lasta.

I have noticed for the Koreans at least that aden castle control does grant the controlling bp access to the boss floors of ToI. That's a markedly big advantage for them, with Ken as Papi has said the castle control and power isn't likely to change unless something is done to encourage war. Or in NC's wisdom it's more likely they'll just rip out the teleporter NPC from Aden then deal with fixing the system.

Though all in all good post Papi.

I used to seige more often in times passed, but the seiging game has changed...a lot. It's not so much that I mind the getting kicked around doing it, but that getting clobbered by a group of botted/power-leveled cheaters, burning pot and gem money along with frequently lost exp just didn't jive with me.

Especially when it became abundantly clear that aside from any small amount of entertainment I'd get from harrassing these people...my efforts were entirely fruitless pretty much every time. I think many of us share that sentiment when it comes to seiging. It's not a level playing-field and we know it...and loathe to waste our time and finite resources on a system that only reinforces the dominance of cheating and cheaters.

I'd like to see a change to seiging too...but a bigger problem needs to be addressed first and I just don't see that happening any time soon.

Wait...What??

i agree 100% with Mr C and thats all im going to say =>

MuddyWater
www.muddymudpuddle.blogspot.com

UGH ~slaps papi~ get a clue lol

MuddyWater
www.muddymudpuddle.blogspot.com