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 ^^
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 ^^