What's new

Discussion : About castles

Dendor

New Member
Hello everyone as the title says I wanted to give an opinion / suggestion about the subject
once again we have in the game one / two castles taken by an inactive pn that will surely remain forever by the siege classification system itself and the fact that they only enter bid and then be afk receiving the rewards and with an unattended castle like It happened before.
Beyond the problem raised, the implemented active exp system seems good to be in the ranking but clearly did not work.
and the suggestion to reverse this would be that the penalty / requirements to besiege is inverse to how it is now, this means that it falls on the one that already has the castle, and not on those who want to try to have one, and thus encourage competition. put requirements / penalty for the owner of the castle and not on the one who wants the opportunity to have one. such as larger requirements of guild exp or leadership to ensure that castle owners are an active guild and not one that only enters to make the minimum guild exp and claim their gold every Monday. one of the penalties could be in the case that they do not meet the proposed requirements, that they lose the castle or lower the lvl of guild so that they work if they want to obtain one. in this way the requirements and penalties fall to the guild that has obtained a castle to ensure that it remains active and if for a reason it stops playing it should lose it and leave the other guilds active the opportunity to fight for a castle.
The competition is good and the population moves positively, I would even risk allowing any guild to be able to bid for the siege scroll and as the only requirement is to have 50 members after all if someone wants to keep his castle he must work hard and be active to do it because any guild can try to take it away.
It would be good to hear suggestions about this topic again and excuse the bad English ^^
 
I don't see an issue with the PNs having 2 castles. PN1 will lose a castle and from now on, never be able to obtain a second due to the change the devs introduced with 4.0.
PN2 doesn't have one for a while now and will also never get more than one.

But what I agree on is the silly mechanics for holding a castle. Activity, guild strength both play zero role in regards to being able to keep a castle.

People just bid with allied guilds for scrolls and it's just a "Who has more gold" -kinda thing. Which is stupid cause of course as a castle owner you'd have more gold than the people trying to siege it.
 
What Dendor proposes seems interesting to me. This could prevent dead guilds with castles in which nothing is done, giving the possibility that other guilds that if they play on our server can opt for those castles.
Maybe put some custom mission, maybe something related to the ladership ... It would be nice to see more opinions and ideas about it ^^
 
The OP has some great ideas. As it is the castle system is very broken. Those castle holding guilds with a lot of gold will just pay off another guild to pretend siege. Maybe the devs can put some kind of timer on the guilds who bid on a castle and don't fight so they can't bid again for 3-4 cycles.
 
once again we have in the game one / two castles taken by an inactive pn that will surely remain forever by the siege classification system itself and the fact that they only enter bid and then be afk receiving the rewards and with an unattended castle like It happened before.

I agree although I think you have some wrong information. Trickster and Disorderly aren't a pn, they're just frail west guilds. Easy enough to mess that up though since you never see any of them online. I agree neither of those guilds should get away with owning a castle but then again there are not any guilds wanting to take a free castle for some reason.
 
I agree although I think you have some wrong information. Trickster and Disorderly aren't a pn, they're just frail west guilds. Easy enough to mess that up though since you never see any of them online. I agree neither of those guilds should get away with owning a castle but then again there are not any guilds wanting to take a free castle for some reason.
The problem with that if the castle holding guild does not have enough players they will recruit the pirates and other high geared people for the siege so they can make those numbers up pretty quickly.
 
Correct that is how a sandbox mmo based around alliances and guild relationships work. You will almost never see a siege where it is one group attacking or one group defending all on there own especially on this server.
 
Hello everyone as the title says I wanted to give an opinion / suggestion about the subject
once again we have in the game one / two castles taken by an inactive pn that will surely remain forever by the siege classification system itself and the fact that they only enter bid and then be afk receiving the rewards and with an unattended castle like It happened before.
Beyond the problem raised, the implemented active exp system seems good to be in the ranking but clearly did not work.
and the suggestion to reverse this would be that the penalty / requirements to besiege is inverse to how it is now, this means that it falls on the one that already has the castle, and not on those who want to try to have one, and thus encourage competition. put requirements / penalty for the owner of the castle and not on the one who wants the opportunity to have one. such as larger requirements of guild exp or leadership to ensure that castle owners are an active guild and not one that only enters to make the minimum guild exp and claim their gold every Monday. one of the penalties could be in the case that they do not meet the proposed requirements, that they lose the castle or lower the lvl of guild so that they work if they want to obtain one. in this way the requirements and penalties fall to the guild that has obtained a castle to ensure that it remains active and if for a reason it stops playing it should lose it and leave the other guilds active the opportunity to fight for a castle.
The competition is good and the population moves positively, I would even risk allowing any guild to be able to bid for the siege scroll and as the only requirement is to have 50 members after all if someone wants to keep his castle he must work hard and be active to do it because any guild can try to take it away.
It would be good to hear suggestions about this topic again and excuse the bad English ^^

I agree with what Dendor indicates.
And in addition to what he proposes, I think we should prevent people from changing guild just to defend or attack a castle. It would be better to implement a mercenary system, the option could be in the same NPC where registration is made to attack a castle, there could be a possibility that a guild be registered as a mercenary and the guild that attacks or defends if they want to hire mercenaries should pay gold through the same npc. The value to be paid for mercenaries could be proportional to the bid value paid by the attacker of the castle and to prevent the characters from changing guild only for sieges could raise the penalty for leaving a guild to 7 days.
I think that with this you can take advantage of sieges even more, since it can give all the guilds the possibility to participate in these events without having to change guilds.
 
Back
Top