Possibilities are possibilities; I'm sure if a large enough group really, REALLY wanted to, they could probably manage to pull off what @Enigmatic Sage is describing. BUT! If you can manage to orchestrate this with AS MANY players as it would require, wouldn't the result fit the effort? Such an action would amount to de-incentivizing players from playing in those guilds; Sub-consciously, they'd know that a level of challenge has been removed from their gameplay - which inherently results in players looking for groups/servers elsewhere that can again offer that challenge back to them.
Guild Leader: "Hey, guys! C'mon - we're all going to sit around for 2 hours in about the same exact place to exploit the Siege mechanic and make it un-fair to the rest of the server that our Metropolis won't be able to be sieged again for 50 days!"
Me and Probably *Most* Players: "Oh. That sounds like.... fun. You know what? I've actually been meaning to work on an alt over on a server where things are less predictable and there's more excitement.... I'll be back, later!"
....And then we're NOT!
If a massive enough guild/alliance can convince 500 players to sit still and not do anything fun for 2 hours, THEN LET THEM! Yours truly - and again, I suspect *MOST* players - wouldn't be caught dead playing with such a boring group. Time for a server-transfer!
@Tyranthraxus potentially to an extent depends how in the loop they are or perspectives of what kind of gamer they are.
As an example, if you have a level 6 node, exploit a siege against it, technically that node would be safe from attacks for X amount of days or weeks even. Exploit well worth it to many with similar perspective. Why risk having it destroyed to level 0 or any of your higher valued nodes for that matter which are important to the community.
Maybe they find it fun having a private friendly brawl staged within the siege. Maybe there is other things to farm from the mobs and bosses in the area's. They dont have to "sit around". lol, but that's always an option too.
The idea of the game is to maintain your nodes and vassals, why jeopardise the high valued ones that bring in those resources and currency, lol. Lots of motives. Suggesting players would just sit around to downplay it doesn't really affect the exploit and game mechanics to exploit.
It wouldn't be that hard to orchestrate with the right community and leadership. You'd think 500 players would be hard to orchestrate but that's how the chain of command work. Officers to grunts. Communities want to win. They'd still be able to participate in other sieges while protecting their own assets from destruction.
I'm just theory crafting potential strategic possibilities with the games current design.
Think about it.
One raid leader can handle 40 willing people to some degree. That raid leader could be part of officer chat who knows the plan. 10 raid leaders for 400 players? Not that crazy to be honest. That's getting 10 people to tell their raid groups what to do. Potential subordinates for each group in the raid as well. Once people figure out the mechanics of the node sieges, it'll be relatively easy to orchestrate.
A group of 20 raid leaders could potentially orchestrate 800 players including themselves or separate across different nodes etc.
Just bring players you trust to the exploitation events and just orchestrate normal node sieges for other events once established. You'd still get to experience both and maintain your empire. Some players are very loyal to their communities and guilds. They want to win and have the best experience at the end of the day so I wouldn't count it as one of those hard to imagine scenarios. I've played in major PvP scenarios that had hundreds of players well orchestrated. Not all gamers are built the same but that doesn't mean it's not unlikely to happen.
Just because you may not be allies in the game, doesn't mean you're not allies in a discord somewhere
Maybe they'll use the the private siege for some R & D time or a Private Guild meeting or guild event. Lots can be done in the down time until the event is over, lol.
I'm just brain storming possibilities of what can be done other than just "sitting" around.
Not wearing gear at a Siege is the polar opposite of winning.
Not wearing gear when you are playing for the side you want to lose (as was the case here) is winning.
If you want the side you are on to lose, and you are actively working to that end, then that is winning.
And to that point, if I have more players than the cap available to me, you had better believe I will try and get some of the remainder in to the opposition side. It would be foolish not to.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Not wearing gear at a Siege is the polar opposite of winning.
lots of ways to throw the match as the idiom goes. Maybe the goal isn't to win as an attacker which I have gone over several times It's a way to lock out your node from being attacked for x amount of days by exploiting the mechanic in game design.
Not wearing gear to aid someone in losing a siege is absurd.
Applying the concept of "throwing a match" to sieges is also absurd.
Your explanations become more silly rather than providing clarity, but...
Have fun! I'm done.
Not wearing gear at a Siege is the polar opposite of winning.
lots of ways to throw the match as the idiom goes. Maybe the goal isn't to win as an attacker which I have gone over several times It's a way to lock out your node from being attacked for x amount of days by exploiting the mechanic in game design.
Not wearing gear to aid someone in losing a siege is absurd.
Applying the concept of "throwing a match" to sieges is also absurd.
Your explanations become more silly rather than providing clarity, but...
Have fun! I'm done.
Lol, maybe give it another read through to help connect the dots you may have missed?
Applying the concept of "throwing a match" to sieges is also absurd.
Why is this absurd?
Lets say you lead a guild that will try and defend a node about to be sieged, and I am leading the guild that is managing the attacking side of that siege.
Now let's say I offer you and your guild more money than you have collectively ever made in the game if your node loses the siege. I don't want you on my side, because I already have more than enough players on my side to hit the cap for the siege.
So, instead, you and your guild join the siege on the defenders side, and take up 100 of their 500 possible spots.
This means that if you guys do literally nothing, the siege is now 400v500. However, you can do more than nothing, and can actively assist us in winning the siege in order to collect your payout.
While you may not have any influence over the remaining 400 people, anyone that has played any team sport will tell you that if 20% of your team actively want to lose, you are going to lose.
Comments
Guild Leader: "Hey, guys! C'mon - we're all going to sit around for 2 hours in about the same exact place to exploit the Siege mechanic and make it un-fair to the rest of the server that our Metropolis won't be able to be sieged again for 50 days!"
Me and Probably *Most* Players: "Oh. That sounds like.... fun. You know what? I've actually been meaning to work on an alt over on a server where things are less predictable and there's more excitement.... I'll be back, later!"
....And then we're NOT!
If a massive enough guild/alliance can convince 500 players to sit still and not do anything fun for 2 hours, THEN LET THEM! Yours truly - and again, I suspect *MOST* players - wouldn't be caught dead playing with such a boring group. Time for a server-transfer!
As an example, if you have a level 6 node, exploit a siege against it, technically that node would be safe from attacks for X amount of days or weeks even. Exploit well worth it to many with similar perspective. Why risk having it destroyed to level 0 or any of your higher valued nodes for that matter which are important to the community.
Maybe they find it fun having a private friendly brawl staged within the siege. Maybe there is other things to farm from the mobs and bosses in the area's. They dont have to "sit around". lol, but that's always an option too.
The idea of the game is to maintain your nodes and vassals, why jeopardise the high valued ones that bring in those resources and currency, lol. Lots of motives. Suggesting players would just sit around to downplay it doesn't really affect the exploit and game mechanics to exploit.
It wouldn't be that hard to orchestrate with the right community and leadership. You'd think 500 players would be hard to orchestrate but that's how the chain of command work. Officers to grunts. Communities want to win. They'd still be able to participate in other sieges while protecting their own assets from destruction.
I'm just theory crafting potential strategic possibilities with the games current design.
One raid leader can handle 40 willing people to some degree. That raid leader could be part of officer chat who knows the plan. 10 raid leaders for 400 players? Not that crazy to be honest. That's getting 10 people to tell their raid groups what to do. Potential subordinates for each group in the raid as well. Once people figure out the mechanics of the node sieges, it'll be relatively easy to orchestrate.
A group of 20 raid leaders could potentially orchestrate 800 players including themselves or separate across different nodes etc.
Just bring players you trust to the exploitation events and just orchestrate normal node sieges for other events once established. You'd still get to experience both and maintain your empire. Some players are very loyal to their communities and guilds. They want to win and have the best experience at the end of the day so I wouldn't count it as one of those hard to imagine scenarios. I've played in major PvP scenarios that had hundreds of players well orchestrated. Not all gamers are built the same but that doesn't mean it's not unlikely to happen.
Just because you may not be allies in the game, doesn't mean you're not allies in a discord somewhere
Maybe they'll use the the private siege for some R & D time or a Private Guild meeting or guild event. Lots can be done in the down time until the event is over, lol.
I'm just brain storming possibilities of what can be done other than just "sitting" around.
Not wearing gear when you are playing for the side you want to lose (as was the case here) is winning.
If you want the side you are on to lose, and you are actively working to that end, then that is winning.
And to that point, if I have more players than the cap available to me, you had better believe I will try and get some of the remainder in to the opposition side. It would be foolish not to.
Applying the concept of "throwing a match" to sieges is also absurd.
Your explanations become more silly rather than providing clarity, but...
Have fun! I'm done.
Lol, maybe give it another read through to help connect the dots you may have missed?
Lets say you lead a guild that will try and defend a node about to be sieged, and I am leading the guild that is managing the attacking side of that siege.
Now let's say I offer you and your guild more money than you have collectively ever made in the game if your node loses the siege. I don't want you on my side, because I already have more than enough players on my side to hit the cap for the siege.
So, instead, you and your guild join the siege on the defenders side, and take up 100 of their 500 possible spots.
This means that if you guys do literally nothing, the siege is now 400v500. However, you can do more than nothing, and can actively assist us in winning the siege in order to collect your payout.
While you may not have any influence over the remaining 400 people, anyone that has played any team sport will tell you that if 20% of your team actively want to lose, you are going to lose.