Return of every weekend being a siege weekend except for the first Friday of the month • CCNet

Return of every weekend being a siege weekend except for the first Friday of the month Back

GillyWillie 4 hours ago

Many players and I agree that the bi-weekly sieges are boring and make them and the server more inactive, (the most common surges of activity are on siege weekends). Another reason this should be reimplemented is that it will bring sieges to more areas around the map allowing for diversity in sieges. The "newer" siege schedule was implemented so that people wouldn't have to worry about having to prep their forts every 2 weeks; however, this new schedule hasn't fixed this problem, and the forts have to re-prep every 2 weeks regardless of this newer system. For example, New_Middleburg seems to get sieged almost every opportunity that there is for it to be. This doesn't allow time for other sieges because every week is either a suppression siege or an attempt at a revolt, meaning that every siege weekend is almost always at the same handful of forts. It also uses DP which is vital in attending or starting other sieges. Adding a week between this time would not only encourage players to siege different forts that aren't on siege immunity in this time it would also make the server overall more active because people would have other forts and sieges to go to. Another point I want to point out is that the immunity timer has been registered pretty much useless since this update and that surrendering is no longer a way to make your occupation be shorter and it is now just a way to regain diplomatic points used on that siege. due to the decline in players participating in sieges preparing the siege is no longer as much of a hassle as it was when the suggestion to change it was. It is also known that both of the two mega alliances on the server have shown interest in the return to the older system. This would also make the 9 day ally cooldown more relevant as it has been made almost obsolete with the two week gap in between sieges (with the exception the occasional consecutive siege weekend which occurs about every 3 months).

Comments

Nxva 4 hours ago

/stop

_dogster 3 hours ago

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

OvO about 1 hour ago

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

OvO about 1 hour ago

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