Forums
Changes to encourage sieges - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://forums.mc-atlas.com)
+-- Forum: Atlas Forum (https://forums.mc-atlas.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Suggestions (https://forums.mc-atlas.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Changes to encourage sieges (/showthread.php?tid=993)



Changes to encourage sieges - Totum - 08-09-2019

Defense:
-You no longer lose resources on defense. Instead, any resources the attackers take (still within the 10% limits) will be converted into gems, with each item being assigned a gem value, and the gems being deducted from the defender’s coffers. All resources will then be returned, provided the gem cost is met. However, high value items (ex. Kairos or Drakonfell armors) can still be stolen as is currently in the siege system.

Attack:
-When you die, you no longer drop a % of your items, but instead, can enable an option to keep ALL your items for an increased gem cost (talking 500-600%) when declaring a siege. This also depletes magika faster, however. 


I hope that these, or modified versions, of these ideas can help make sieges more about relics and less about having to use excessive resources to gain very little. Thanks for reading.


RE: Changes to encourage sieges - bismar7 - 08-09-2019

The first part could allow mock sieges for the purpose of generating gems. If implemented well this could create an atmoshere of sportmanship, if not it could be used by friendly nation to generate gems, but its an intriguing idea.

The second would reduce the risk in terms of time and gear when attacking, which could be good.

None of this addresses why people don't want to participate in relics or sieges as I see it though, you could reduce the risk to zero and unless people enjoy it on both sides of the conflict they won't participate.

To get people engaged in sieges, or combat in general, you need to address:

1. The political crap on the server creating a culture of conflicts arising from a lack of respect for nations where pvp is a minor aspect of them, by nations where pvp is a major aspect for them. Which then seems to result in salt and toxicity (intentionally ruining the game for others) for days, weeks, or months. Sieges won't ever happen if the consequence believed for participating is endless action taken to ruin the game for them (eg, drive them from the server).

2. The lack of non-combat roles/gameplay during sieges, as in after the prelude.

3. Some level of belief in a nations ability to compete (ie it cannot be vastly one sided in terms of gear or skill, because both sides need to believe its possible to win, otherwise one side won't bother since the outcome to them will be the same either way).

Thats my two cents anyway.