Raven016 wrote: » To trigger a siege will be as expensive as building the defenses.
Cplusplus wrote: » hello,guys, welcome to this discussion. I have an idea: if a guild with nearly 1000 members simultaneously establishes two alliances, could it be possible to permanently occupy the best castle area and top nodes by using the other alliance's territory to simulate attacks during sieges?
Tyranthraxus wrote: » Doesn't it establish a unifying factor against which lesser guilds can rally? Shouldn't a massive organization that manages to NOT fracture constantly per it's large size and who also manages to win the key battles to hold their territory have the right to do so? Why would it be bad, if they can manage the numbers without falling apart, all the time?
Kilion wrote: » Cplusplus wrote: » hello,guys, welcome to this discussion. I have an idea: if a guild with nearly 1000 members simultaneously establishes two alliances, could it be possible to permanently occupy the best castle area and top nodes by using the other alliance's territory to simulate attacks during sieges? Based on the Wiki entry a "Guild size of 300 is currently the maximum cap that can be attained" so it would only be be possible to achieve the size by forming an alliance. Going from there it would be necessary for 1 guild to take over the Castle and its 3 castle nodes, while the other 2 guilds of the alliance would have to fight their way into dominance by occupying two of the 5 possible tier 6 Nodes. [Wiki entry on Metropolis] which is quite difficult already. So during a castle siege both sides will have 250 player at minimum facing off against each other and a maximum of 500 per side [Wiki entry on Castle Sieges] which would mean it should be possible to recrute support from the allied guilds. Such limits would only be possible by some sort of access limitation, meaning spontaneous intervention during the siege wouldn't be a thing and the alliance couldn't throw in their whole members to overpower any attackers. Lastly, let's say there is indeed a server that is able to establish such a powerful force on one server: This alliance while probably rather stable overall has a few significant issues to solve long term: depending on the Node type remaining in power (occupying the mayor position) could prove quite difficult especially when we are talking Tier 6 Nodes which can have up to 3 patron guilds the longer the alliance lasts the longer they basically are blocking story arcs and new/other dungeons with their established Node which motivates player to sooner or later side with a faction that will bring down the "old" Nodes The perks of being a King/Queen or mayor of a castle or node are quite nice, especially being able to use true flight mounts, which might result in internal conflict over these perks An alliance like that would cover less than 50% of the world which leaves plenty of room for considerable opposition to establish itself. Furthermore these enemies would - in theory - have the opportunity to make a coordinated attack on all three heart pieces of the alliance, the castle and the two Metropoli at the same time. That would require considerable resources from the attackers to create 2 siege scrolls at the same time but it is possible and would break the support lines of the alliance because each group would be forced by the simultaneous attack to fend for themselves.
NiKr wrote: » Tyranthraxus wrote: » Doesn't it establish a unifying factor against which lesser guilds can rally? Shouldn't a massive organization that manages to NOT fracture constantly per it's large size and who also manages to win the key battles to hold their territory have the right to do so? Why would it be bad, if they can manage the numbers without falling apart, all the time? Pretty much this. If 1k people on the server only stay in their single castle - that means that this 1k players can't go mess up other castles during sieges (I assume there's gonna be at least several of them happening at the same time, if not all of them). The biggest issue/abuse I could see here is if people from that alliance can create a fully fake siege and lock everyone else out. And right now it does seem to be the case, because sieges will have limited amounts of participants. Hell, you wouldn't even need 1k people to achieve this. So I definitely hope Intrepid come up with some preventive measures against these tactics.
Cplusplus wrote: » Kilion wrote: » Cplusplus wrote: » hello,guys, welcome to this discussion. I have an idea: if a guild with nearly 1000 members simultaneously establishes two alliances, could it be possible to permanently occupy the best castle area and top nodes by using the other alliance's territory to simulate attacks during sieges? Based on the Wiki entry a "Guild size of 300 is currently the maximum cap that can be attained" so it would only be be possible to achieve the size by forming an alliance. Going from there it would be necessary for 1 guild to take over the Castle and its 3 castle nodes, while the other 2 guilds of the alliance would have to fight their way into dominance by occupying two of the 5 possible tier 6 Nodes. [Wiki entry on Metropolis] which is quite difficult already. So during a castle siege both sides will have 250 player at minimum facing off against each other and a maximum of 500 per side [Wiki entry on Castle Sieges] which would mean it should be possible to recrute support from the allied guilds. Such limits would only be possible by some sort of access limitation, meaning spontaneous intervention during the siege wouldn't be a thing and the alliance couldn't throw in their whole members to overpower any attackers. Lastly, let's say there is indeed a server that is able to establish such a powerful force on one server: This alliance while probably rather stable overall has a few significant issues to solve long term: depending on the Node type remaining in power (occupying the mayor position) could prove quite difficult especially when we are talking Tier 6 Nodes which can have up to 3 patron guilds the longer the alliance lasts the longer they basically are blocking story arcs and new/other dungeons with their established Node which motivates player to sooner or later side with a faction that will bring down the "old" Nodes The perks of being a King/Queen or mayor of a castle or node are quite nice, especially being able to use true flight mounts, which might result in internal conflict over these perks An alliance like that would cover less than 50% of the world which leaves plenty of room for considerable opposition to establish itself. Furthermore these enemies would - in theory - have the opportunity to make a coordinated attack on all three heart pieces of the alliance, the castle and the two Metropoli at the same time. That would require considerable resources from the attackers to create 2 siege scrolls at the same time but it is possible and would break the support lines of the alliance because each group would be forced by the simultaneous attack to fend for themselves. Hey, thanks for sharing your thoughts! So, I'm thinking that if people from almost two alliances team up and share the spoils, we could have one alliance backing up with a fake siege during the real one. That way, even if a big guild from the other alliance (50 people or more) jumps into a battle (node or castle), it eases up the pressure on the defending side. What do you guys think about this strategy? Just tossing it out there for discussion!
Kilion wrote: » As far as I am aware there can only be one siege at a time on a node / castle and they have a week of preparation time. What an allied force COULD do to sabotage the attackers is enroll on the attacker side and not participate in the siege shifting the balance in manpower in the defenders favor.
