please add the west coast NA and SA air region :praying

region soi is a dumb concept how is anyone supposed to get the Maritime Silk Road bonus for example plus how do u wanna choose who can go where?

Youve only included the people that WANT it added not the peoplee that are against it.

Imo if region soi got added the range would have to be larger than usual soi as not many people have forts right next to regions e.g indian

The suggestion itself isn't suggesting SOI in regions its simply showing the players that have agreed with it, in my view mabye you could get the bonuses out of the combination of 3 regions close to eachother mabye a mix of the bigger and smaller ones, instead of across the world, these should be 1 region for each type of player vs player, so 1 for pot pvp like america and scandinavia, 1 for naval and 1 for ground

Tuvelito its a petition, and I indeed asked what people wanted, if you read the data you can see people voted if they wanted the current timer or a diferent one

you can guarentee 95-99% of players want that? Even your own poll doesn't suggest that stop trying to speak for everyone.

I was speaking for myself, I left the data there as a complement, how can you say Im lying trying to speak for everyone when I litterally leave the whole data in the suggestion itself for you to see

In my opinion for regions the primary issue is the take all nature of it. Of course regions are never going to be contested if there is a chance of losing your deposit (fleet). If at least the losses were economically subsidised this would create less risk. If nations like Thracia are unwilling to risk losses over Med and Atlantic what chances do nations like Mashriqi or the UK have? In some ways the diplomatic importance of Regions without SOI and the fact the 'have nots' are always at a material disadvantage... it is no wonder why regions are fought so infrequently or rely on using rather frustrating methods in order to win.

I find it comical a lot of Alliance pilots, and before Alliance, Coalition pilots constantly complained of nations using lighter craft or committing small crafts instead of a fleet creating ufnun combat. Yet both sides when dominant refuse to understand the fact the winning side has insane income of 16k/23k per region which covers their losses pretty easily especially the fact when a region goes uncontested... and the attacker is forced with no emergency capital to replace a fleet to attack a region with the idea he might not only lose prestige and morale but the actual physical ability to siege a region for months. Hence in order to win, the ONLY VIABLE alternative is to wear out the enemy with Corvette sieges with one big shock siege. This is also the reason I have changed my mind over a 'region booking system'.

Now we have broken down the reason regions are not sieged, I will examine why more regions will not solve the issue. In fact it will lead to more nations having their cash cow and likely prevent others from taking it. Why would Rome risk fighting a stronghold of Teluria when it comfortably controls 3 regions. Therefore its likely we will just see inflation, which is likely already being caused by the fact certain nations have 3 regions and of which perhaps 1 is sieged infrequently.

The solution therefore MUST be a proportional system of means. It still means a terrible performance will be punished HOWEVER it means where the points are closer to even the funding will be fairer for both sides. It also means fights should last longer as even if a loss is guaranteed there is still something to gain for both sides. Thracia may actually attack the North Atlantic region consistently knowing it will get something out of it, this might cause the strategy of the 'have nots' to commit actual fleets. Such combat is more fun for both sides.

The practical issue remains of calculation, 20k is insufficient under this system. Instead we need a variable system. This has some perks:
- Lower inflation as when regions are not sieged, the payout will be non or less.
- Bigger battles will lead to bigger funds promoting all sides to fight even if there is no victory.
- The loss of the take all system means regions will become less toxic as sunk costs wont be as high or atleast slightly insured.
The pay out system should have a set cost for each warship combat tagged, all will be combined by the server and divided based on proportion of points for each side. Such a system means smaller battles wont be pursued as optimal strategy and would create plenty of action.

The idea that uncontested regions would give no pay-out is contested, but it would reduce inflation. One might argue people will not siege regions to weaponize this... but these people are ridiculously holding onto their locked in advantage given the 'have-nots' barely siege a region regardless. This renders the raised point invalid. In my opinion the payout for each region should be 1k a day by default and raise to the proportional amount for participants when contested.

you literally said "I can guarantee, 95-99% of people that play this server whether grinders, roleplayers, builders, redstoners, movecrafters even pvpers, would rather have the ccnet experience with a lower amount of sieges" When even your own data isnt even close to that range. Your trying to make your idea seem more popular than it actually it is.

I also lobby for the removal of the theatres, for they have not created conflict among allies as intended by Zaify but rather led to players using ./pay and transport to share bonuses. Alternative means should be devised.

I respect the commitment you have shown fake for these Ideas, and I don't envy the fact you are going to have the luxury of dealing with people who would much rather win over having fun, but I do believe the idea I suggested would definitively solve the issue in its entirity.

Also if staff prefered Id love to see offcial polls in the ccnet discord, so we can check all the facts

imo region soi would just be stupid, its literally just targeting romes power from regions??? Other than that i think most of the points are valid, having a CW battle week when theres a Nations break and vice versa would be a fair way to balance both the players who wish to build, grind or other non-siege things would find this beneficial, and siege enjoyers could simply hop over to the other server for the siege week, its a win-win for everyone.

I believe a great region idea would be a air battle region, it would provide fresh content for the repetitive weeks that currently happen on nations.

Region soi is a decent idea to promote the have nots to fight, its not as great as an idea as vairability but would solve the issue. Thinking of your own nation when reading suggestions is slightly unhealthy.

Even in your own poll which only showed points for one side the actual voting for longer siege cooldown was 70% to 30% nowhere near your claimed "95-99% that you can guarentee appearntly" You also say sieges are every week which they aren't there are 3 sieges a month with peace week so thats not even true either. you are overexagerrating a lot while also not showing any other opinions besides the people who want this change.

given the global nature of sieges and without soi everyone is either forced or expected to attend, 3+ sieges in a month is high. A lot of the reasons sieges back then were more enjoyable is they were infrequent. Accept for maybe Dunlace. Which is probally why we should remove supression sieges.

Lowkey a Pacific region but on the america side

Holy "@everyone upvote this suggestion."

W suggestion

L Suggestion, if you want to make sieges fun change the meta not the timer lol

I 100% agree with has_z's suggestion, to address 7ett, this has been a largely a cross-side issue and Fake did say that; one, this is a suggestion for the admins to enforce; and two, has offered ways to decide if the community truly wants this.

just do less sieges

Maxi is a clear example of someone that doesn't read the suggestion and wants to talk about it, Id suggest you to read the full text before saying anything as I even added player feedback from the whole petition, I showed data of what people wanted you can't argue its a bad suggestion because you think changing the meta would be the way to fix the game, when I give a big spotlight to players like solo and his terrain regeneration suggestion, etc

Some of the downsides i think that come with this.
Community: During sieges is by far the most active time on the server. It brings a lot of the community on all at the same time and its great since you get to spend time with friends. Extending the gap between sieges just means longer droughts of lower player count and less time you get to spend with the majority of players.

Crowded sieges: Lowering the amount of sieges in a month (possibly) could increase the amount of players that get on for the sieges that do happen. This could cause much larger fights when they do happen and a lot of players struggle with getting high enough fps during this sieges to begin with it could be a hinderance to these players. Not everyone prefers this but many players do prefer smaller fights than larger fights that could happen with more infrequent sieges.

Missing out: Having sieges less often also makes it so that if someone is busy and unable to attend for that particular siege they are going to have to wait even longer to participate in the next siege which could make them feel left out and bored of the server for weeks.

Occupation: If a nation falls under occupation there is a longer time for them to revolt. This isn't necessarily a bad thing however depending on the direction the staff want the server to be it could be a negative.

Region SOI is only thing on here I strongly disagree with. Mostly because it makes it harder to have large naval fights and will degrade most regions to 5v5s or 10v3s. Other then that this suggestion is pretty nice

7ett to respond to your points

Community: This is the only point I can somewhat understand, I do believe CCNet is at its most active during sieges, but it also comes with alot of toxicity during these times, so I dont think its that major of a concern

Crowded sieges: With the current siege meta, there's always around 1-2 sessions per siege day that are contested, and these are always super highly contested by both sides, as often it's the deciding session of the whole siege. I feel like small fights are barely ever a thing now a days, only if its a small scale siege (which only happens between non alliance/coalition nations)

Missing out: I really feel like it's not that big of a deal. Like I said there's only 1-2 sessions really contested per day, and there are still PvP regions and movecraft regions that would still have the same frequency of being able to be sieged per week.

Occupation: This is just not true, current suggestion states that theres 1 week of peace in between each siege week. And as there is already a 2 week cooldown on suppressing/revolting, getting occupied will still mean that with this suggestion, the revolt/supression siege will take place in another siege week rather than a peace weak. The only exception for this is white bannering whilst the siege window is still opened, as it allows the fort to be suppressed/revolted the next week already again, but we could simply just have an exception made for this, as it barely happens that sieges are revolted

I do see your points Blue, and i would like to offer a different view of some.

Community: I don't think there being some toxicity during siege weekends means its automatically not a concern at all.
Sure its a competitive environment and that does create some toxicity.
However that still does not negate all the good interactions that also come with sieges. Its by far the most active time in a lot of nations and their communities and even for the "1-2 contested sessions per siege day" the server still averages more players over the course of the entire siege weekend and in the hours prior towards it, compared to a peaceweek. It still requires cappers for the sessions that aren't contested and its still a major way players get to interact and work together.

Crowded Sieges: Yes. for a good chunk of sieges there is only 1-2 sessions fully contested per day. However the sieges (even the already crowded ones) would likely just be even more crowded than they are now.
In a worst case scenario it could even result in the queue being a more common thing during sieges. . My point is that it would cause any fights to be even more crowded and even less enjoyable for a lot of players.

Missing Out: I disagree. Sieges are still the only time you get to be with the a lot of the community for more than just a short 30-60 minute region. Even if a player only logs on for those 1-2 sessions contested per day (which can include those off sessions) they still are gonna have multiple hours to interact with other players which isn't the case for regions due to their short length.

Occupation: I admit i was wrong about this.

Region SOI would be good but might have to be larger, would nice to see each nations main navy be able to shine for once rather than just a few