/stop

Good suggestion. The lack of sieges in between suppressions and revolts just causes the same forts to be the only sieges every single siege weekend. I miss having a rotation of new forts to siege in between suppressions to break the monotonous cycle of suppression sieges. I would probably go to sieges more often if it wasn't the same fort every siege weekend for 2 months. I'm curious how grinders feel about this since (I think) the change was originally to alleviate pressure from grinders since the current meta (at least at the time) caused grinders to get burnt out. If no one has an issue with grinding for an additional siege weekend every month I don't see how this wouldn't be a good idea. PS as a staff member I have no say in development, this is just my opinion as a player

wanting more sieges is an understandable demand, however, most of those players asking for more sieges are pvpers who -understandably- want more action, but I dont think returning to the old siege system would fix anything from the problems you have described, and a solution would need to consider the general server health not just pvpers point of view

forts like middleburg, narin and Dragor castle are sieged more often simply because they are easier to win for attackers and shouldnt be used as a sign of the system failing
likewise, saying the new system havent reduced fort preparation time isnt accurate either, a few forts do get sieged on every possible window but the system has been positive almost everywhere else as many nations are no longer constantly targeted

as for server activity, having a siege every weekend doesnt mean a healthier server, the old siege system expected players to be active every weekend and prepare forts during weekdays to not risk occupation which eventually led to burn out and treating the server more as an obligation rather than a fun thing to do

finally, the old system was tested before, and had many shortcomings which eventually led to the new siege system, the only disadvantage the current system presents is just less sieges for players, which isnt necessarily a bad thing, this is a geopolitical server not a war server.

regions are available every weeknd and during them similar number to sieges participate

I saw dogster response after I sent my response, I think fixing that would be by having a longer immunity timer only after a revolt/liberation siege so cycle becomes >

fort sieged > fort wins gg, try 2 weekends later

or

fort sieged > fort occupied > fort can revolt(wins or loses doesnt matter) > fort cant be sieged this siege weekend > fort siege-able again



what this does is:
defenders dont need to wait a month to revolt after a suppression or conquest siege, they get a chance to revolt 2 weeks later but if they failed they have to wait a month, revolts are almost always advantageous for defenders so failing them gives them a bigger punishment, however, suppressions are just normal sieges, and defenders should reserve the right to revolt 2 weeks later if they lost
so now the forts that are sieged more frequently will not be sieged after they win or lose a revolt for an entire siege weekend forcing attackers to go siege other forts other than the weak fort they constantly siege

The bi-week sieges were introduced so that players dont have to prep every week.

But i do agree that there could be more sirges, so I completely agree with ovo here. I had that idea in mind exactly.
Every week is siege week, but the immunity timer isnt 2 weeks, it is 3 weeks long. So every week there are sieges, but the sieges are less repetitive.
Though being occupied for 3 weeks sounds too punishing, so revolts could have dofferent cooldown.
1 week revolt cooldown, and if that fails, it can be surpressed next week.

Please finally make sieges better again

First time i ever seen an actual W aus suggestion

I agree with OvO here. This just seems like it would make nations that so far have been able to stay low-key just more targetable and this feels like it would be even more exhausting for people who don't sweat sieges/PvP.

Well Ashes43 that is a part of owning or being in a nation that is like that. owning a nation there is things that come with it and that is part of it. if people dont want to go to sieges or be worried about sieges they shouldnt join those nations.

Gilly that is an extremely closed-minded and selfish perspective that neglects most aspects of nations outside of PvP. You can't just tell people to not join a nation simply because they don't want to get sieged. The old system, and even the current system now still, rewards meganations sieging smaller ones with no consequences and the only break is that the smaller nations don't have to worry about sieges every single week because it's no surprise that other than the toxic PvP sweats, most people don't actually like endless PvP.

Gilly is right, owning a nation means needing to be able to defend yourself. Defensives are not weekly, there is a 2 week siege cooldown on every fort even under old siege system, you cannot siege the same fort every week, it'd have to be every 2 weeks no matter what. Aside from that, bringing back the old siege schedule would likely revive the playerbase quite a bit, I know my nation personally doesn't log on as much because we have surplus of every siege mat and never have to grind nowadays compared to Venezgrad or old siege schedule times. I do not think this siege schedule would effect nations who "want to be left alone" very much because there are already plenty of other systems in place to allow nations that are small to not get sieged.

Point #1
Speaking as a former grinder, first grinding should be divided between a team not just a few people, yes sieges are a lot of prep, but if you aren't prepped don't do offensives. If you don't like sieges or pvp, being occupied isn't that bad, it just taxes you (depo in town bank/keep it as gold) and no towny resources, if you are a peaceful builder neither of those are that bad. I understand being a burnt out grinder, I've been one before but if you are burning out take a break from the game, don't push past your limits and get super-burnout (quitting grinding). When working as a grinding team most tasks are manageable in 1-2hours a day in just a week, especially for defensives which are less movecraft dependent due to the cannons being able to counter some enemy movecraft.

Most modern sieges look to be less resource intensive, I do not see massive tank vs tank pushes that would cause tens of losses like at old livland sieges, nor usually are there large fleet battles over them like at vestfold, those sieges were what had recently happened when it was a 1 week per month system. Even siege turnout (overall) has lowered (just a generalization, I have no numbers to back it up). In MY opinion 3 siege weeks a month with the same immunity for recently sieged forts will be fine, worst case being occupied isn't that bad overall since it does very little lasting damage, I remember cosmic saying "So long as a occupied nation can always bounce back so long as they don't lose their will to do so" (something like that, it's been years)

I mean this is again both close-minded and self-absorbed as a response. First of all, occupation can be pretty darn difficult to deal with as you can't withdraw money at all, and a lot of people don't have easy access to gold, nor the skills to out-mine the server's biggest grinders, meaning "peaceful builders" can't actually build nor acquire resources. Furthermore, towny resources are sometimes keeping towns afloat in terms of sustainability. CCNet is an extremely grindy server. Simply telling people to not play if they're occupied is just ridiculous. You can't just wait out an occupation from a decent sized nation as they get free money from you and the grinding required to be able to pull off a successful revolt or win a suppression is too much for many people. Also, the CCNet community is undeniably toxic as hell. Occupation often means frequent public ridicule and lack of support even from allies sometimes; "just bounce back" is a both stupid and imperialist mindset.

Also, again, a lot of people don't like endless PvP. CCNet has no functional Towny 3 so the only way for them to connect with the community is with Nations, and you cannot honestly tell me that big nations don't siege smaller nations just because they want to win. Some of the excuses I've seen from big nations like Rome or Teluria to siege smaller ones are poorly masked ambitious imperialism.

Sure, perhaps bringing back the old system might revive some PvPers or even grinders, but those are also some of the community's most problematic people- do we really want or need them back? For many, constantly worrying about a siege next weekend is exhausting and monotonous.

The only way I see this being fair is if fortresses got some kind of every-other-week siegeability where half the forts made can be sieged on Week A and the other half on Week B. This way imperialist nations and PvPers can still have plenty of sieges to go to, but DEFENDERS need only continue worrying about sieges every other week. This system should be completely randomized and irreversible so that it's not metagamed/exploited.

well Nations really isn't meant to be a towny server and yes i understand that players don't really have another choice on ccnet but that's just something they're going to have to deal with on nations. If they don't want to be occupied, they can talk it out with the people that want to siege them and handle it diplomatically. Also you say defenders need to only worry about defending on a bi-weekly schedule. That's how its always have been before or after the schedule was changed unless one side of the siege white banner midway through the siege there isnt a way to siege the very next week. This is from the immunity timmer and that all forts have a 2 week immunity after a siege.

First of all, "L deal with it" is, AGAIN, a very close-minded way of thinking so your entire argument around that is completely irrelevant.

Second of all, you and I both know damn well that people on CCNet would rather eat broken glass than actually negotiate, especially if it's a bigger nation. They don't need to be diplomatic at all, so again, simply dismissing getting steamrolled by a meganation as a "diplomatic" problem when the server rewards unrestrained expansionism is stupid.

Finally, you completely misinterpreted what I suggested as a compromise. My suggestion was that the window in which a fortress can be sieged is split in a bi-weekly schedule randomly upon toggling, so that defenders wouldn't have to sit and worry every single weekend if they would get sieged.

What you suggested is basically how old siege system already worked unless I'm not understanding how you described it? Also nation bank is still accessible when occupied for storing money, I've been occupied for 3 months straight before and I had no issues ever getting money, even when I needed to print a siegebase and reprint an entire fort. A smaller nation getting sieged by a bigger nation is generally a waste of dp, and usually bigger nations have always left small nations alone if that smaller nation simply acts neutral. Even with recent cases like Rome sieging alchak, they sieged alchak once to get alchak to stop being annoying before letting them revolt without contest. There are some unreasonable people who sieged small nations like Fake4 with teluria, however we all saw how that played out in the end. Sieging small nations is usually a waste of resources and time for a large nation, your entire argument is assuming that large nations have no losses when sieging a small nation, it diverts them from actual major sieges and screws their allies. Also once again, I don't see how return of weekly siege schedule would effect anything, since there is still a 2 week cooldown on sieges per-fort, meaning most nations would have the same prep strain that they already have rn. Going back to old schedule simply means that no single nation is the focus every time a siege happens anymore, and sieges could be fought at different and more interesting terrain/forts. I also think this would help fix the problem of one side being defensive locked rn, they'd get the opportunities to do actual counter attacks at the winning sides forts instead of worrying abt defensives every 2 weeks.

To add on to that, I agree CCnet is an incredibly toxic server compared to other towny servers, so for morale it can be very difficult to come back. But that has nothing to do with changing sieges to the old schedule as that very problem happens under the current system. Also calling the mindset of "Bounce Back" stupid is something I don't agree with, the only way a nation can stay positive while losing is by starting to have fun rather then caring if they're occupied or not, knowing that eventually they'll be winning again because no one has an 100% winrate on CCnet.

1. Requiring a leader or coleader to withdraw national funds for everyone for every little build project is unrealistic.

2. "Waste of DP" doesn't matter when many smaller nations that get made get sieged immediately so they're forced to take a side or merge with a bigger one. Big nations siege smaller ones out of spite. It happens. Discounting the idea that it happens simply because it is strategically unwise is unrealistic as people on this server are weirdoes.

3. My suggestion was nothing about a cooldown, it was a randomized bi-weekly window for every fort upon toggling so that every fort would stay as they are now, where they only need to worry about getting sieged themselves every 2 weeks, but there is always another fort that has its own siege window open on the closed forts' peaceful week.

Ashes I see that you keep saying everyone else's argument is "close-minded" you're failing to see that you not seeing any other point of view here is a pretty close minded way of thinking.

I don't think you're grasping the meaning of the words "closed-minded," so let me elaborate for you. Your suggestions only benefit PvPers and maybe some grinders who have never seen the sun. Meanwhile, it makes things more miserable than sieges already are for just about everyone else. You dismiss every argument as you somehow knowing better and litter your rhetoric with a condescending tone, voiding your credibility.

I offered a compromise and it's not my problem that you cannot understand what it entails despite me explaining it in detail. That's not very closed-minded, however you rejecting it entirely and choosing to try and twist it to benefit you, is.

Ashes, ccnet ran on that for years, it's a game and a lot of people have a ton of fun at sieges. The grinding should never fall on one person to do in a week and if it does that person would probably have played a lot anyways just not in that specific part of the game (ccnet reminds people often that it's just a game) . Forts should be pre-prepped meaning you always have 2 weeks between sieges to prep (unless white-bannering which means you keep half your prep anyways) The mandatory 2 week wait removes the point of surrendering and waiting to be prepared to fight and makes sieges get stale because they are just repeated instead of a forced cadence by immunity timers allowing for sieges to cycle.

Replaying to your last message "1. Requiring a leader or coleader to withdraw national funds for everyone for every little build project is unrealistic.

2. "Waste of DP" doesn't matter when many smaller nations that get made get sieged immediately so they're forced to take a side or merge with a bigger one. Big nations siege smaller ones out of spite. It happens. Discounting the idea that it happens simply because it is strategically unwise is unrealistic as people on this server are weirdoes.

3. My suggestion was nothing about a cooldown, it was a randomized bi-weekly window for every fort upon toggling so that every fort would stay as they are now, where they only need to worry about getting sieged themselves every 2 weeks, but there is always another fort that has its own siege window open on the closed forts' peaceful week."

1 - In the case of small nations, it most definitely is assuming we're talking about a group of roughly 10-15 active players maximum, it's very manageable to set up a banking log.

2 - I've provided actual evidence as to Larger nations sieging small nations failing in the mid-long run, I'm not being rude but I genuinely want to ask you for evidence of a large nation getting away with sieging a small nation recently.

3 - If what you're saying is make it so that forts in a nation can not be all sieged on same week which would remove double and triple sieges, then I agree it'd be a good compromise to add with the old system.

jarvis, summarize this