1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Our own little dimensional siege feedback

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by Niewolnica, Feb 8, 2015.

  1. Niewolnica

    Niewolnica User

    Joined:
    15.01.15
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    12
    hello,

    i would like to give some feedback regarding this feature.

    the whole idea is nice, finally there is some reward for keeping the castle. the problem is it's another feature for top 3 clans. it is known which castle will get stone and it complicates whole siege because everyone knows that for example this week (oren) will be taken by box of one of these clans: black swans, black angel, red guard.

    i doubt they ignore item which is worth around 20kkk - 30kkk adena atm.

    how the current defenders, death clan, can manage to defend this castle? who can resist a man-power of 200-300 people on siege? only the 3 clans mentioned above.

    how about moving the winner (choosing a castle) after siege? because as there are 9 castles to conquer, after 4-5 sieges it is still possible to know which castle may get it so the whole siege will take place on few different places and middle clans will be able to defend/participate and not just one castle.

    is it possible to consider it or the way it is distributed will stay as it is now?

    regards
     
  2. Anxxonymous

    Anxxonymous User

    Joined:
    17.09.14
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    313
    saying the winner after the siege will lead to box clans of those 3 top clans will take all castle. both clan will try to take 3 castle and so they will have 1/3 chance to get the stone. i think this has to be reworked indeed but giving the winning castle isn't the way to rework it imho.
     
  3. Niewolnica

    Niewolnica User

    Joined:
    15.01.15
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    12
    since when it is possible to take all castles with box clans? ba rg bs is also busy with theirselves
     
  4. VivaLa

    VivaLa User

    Joined:
    26.08.14
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    42
    if you cant defend castle you dont deserve for it. recruit more ppl. if you want to be small clan dont hope for castle.
     
    L3gAt0 likes this.
  5. SeeingRed

    SeeingRed User

    Joined:
    29.09.13
    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    43
    all this dementional sieges are ****. feeding top clans/ demotivating rest. but as i see here gm's are just making smth w/o even a word b4 they probably think that they are smarter then ncsoft. its all pointless niewolnica, they are listening only to themselves.
    @vivala.
    teach us how to recruit.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2015
  6. syzgod

    syzgod User

    Joined:
    13.12.11
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    96
    still this idea is the best imho.
     
  7. Thunderlane

    Thunderlane User

    Joined:
    18.12.11
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    108
    i believe nova casted all castles on chronos with boxes [​IMG]. also do you seriously suggest bs and rg won't make the ally official as soon as such system goes up. they'll go cast most castles while ba will cast the rest and probably occasionally clash on some siegefield but only when their business is secure.
     
    Rosenrot likes this.
  8. Undressed

    Undressed User

    Joined:
    21.05.14
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    186
    i actually think that all the rest clans witch are not rg/bs/ba dosn't need that stone. it is more for the 'top' clans so it will benefit more our pvps and in those small clans i doubt you have that.

    and it is like in the ncwest non of the small clans are able to get it, so it is better to keep it like that.
     
    Ennigma likes this.
  9. SeeingRed

    SeeingRed User

    Joined:
    29.09.13
    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    43
    jeez, dat ego. already decided who need and what. gratz.
     
  10. Undressed

    Undressed User

    Joined:
    21.05.14
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    186
    well... ofc since you own a smaller clan you ''need it''. buut, we all got diff opinion. i just think it wont change anything if you will have it.
     
  11. Anxxonymous

    Anxxonymous User

    Joined:
    17.09.14
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    313
    pr faster with pvp weapon :d
     
  12. Seivlas

    Seivlas User

    Joined:
    27.05.14
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    200
    imo the "dimensionnal" siege as it currently is is still better than the one you propose (still, i'm happy that you ask us our opinion on the subject). the server isn't only composed with 3 clans, but i think that those 3 clans will be the ones fighting for this stone. making the stone random after siege will simply deny all other clans to have the chance of having a castle, simply because top clans will send 1-2 parties to secure the castle, and in the end, it'll be :
    -the 3 top clans that will have the stone anyway
    -the 3 top clans will have every castle
    because whatever you can say, most clans can be crushed in their whole by 2-3 top cps. so they have their business indeed, but if you allow the randomness, it'll be soon an "avoid-the-fight-between-us-to-have-the-maximum-of-castle"

    so, to conclude, i think that the current version is better.
     
    Bimartt and widuking like this.
  13. Vonak

    Vonak User

    Joined:
    07.12.11
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    60
    i agree with niewolnica that current system is not perfect, but your suggestion is even worst as all people before me said.
    it is normal that pvp weapon stone will go to one of the 3 top clans, because theses are the ones that are strongest. the problem remaining with this siege is that low/mid clans lose one castle to play with.

    - without system, low/mid clans can have fun and fight hard for 7 castles : dion-gludio-giran-heine-goddard-oren-schuttgart. aden and rune are locked by theses "top clans".
    - with system, low/mid clans can have fun only in 6 castles. and the clan that, no luck for him, control the castle choosen will have a terrible siege, because registered as defenders, the only possibility for this clan is to fight somewhere else being non-registered to help some friends/allys somewhere else.

    like the others i don't have the perfect solution, but i highly think that a system giving the stone for owner of aden/rune if they keep it like 2 sieges in a row would be best solution.

    => top clans will still have the stone, and they deserve it the most.
    => top clans will fight hard for it, so pvp will stay
    => low/mid clans will keep their 7 castle playground
    => low/mid clans won't randomly lose castle+have a terrible siege if their castle is choosed.
     
    Henerkk and SimKana like this.
  14. vvvlm

    vvvlm User

    Joined:
    04.12.11
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    567
    with this system i can already tell you that each side will just secure 3 castle and thats it. even split by 1/3 others clan have no chances against any of the current side.

    one solution could be to keep current system and give pvp armor stones to the other castle.
    another could be the just have a core-only dimentional siege for just 2 castles (say aden and giran) where every clan with any castle can join. this way lower clans can fight for giran while top clans fight for aden.
     
  15. SeeingRed

    SeeingRed User

    Joined:
    29.09.13
    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    43
    pvp stone weapon/rest pvp armor's +1.
    about top clans and so on. if midd clans will play smart and stop asking for food like dogs from a top those 2-3 cps of "chosen" will kiss the ground and press to village. the problem is that "midd" clans are fine with what they have just "dont disturb" our little playground. also keep in your mind that thise 3 clans are not allied.
     
  16. Niewolnica

    Niewolnica User

    Joined:
    15.01.15
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    12
    i prefer this solution as clans will be splitted onto different battlefield not focusing only one.
    this would be more interesting. forces spread all over battlefields
     
  17. Tinael

    Tinael User

    Joined:
    05.10.13
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    141
    i still preffer that solution of real ds. dim server with let say 2 castles or only one with pvp stone. make only castle owners be able participate with 70 members max, let them pvp for those two castles.
     
  18. Alkan

    Alkan User

    Joined:
    17.11.14
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    8
    random feedbacks from my clan, basing on reading the rules and cry in game + forum:

    - why not move this to devastated castle siege or some other fighting event?
    - (if we stay with castles) we should know who gets the gems after the siege not before.
    - boxclan re-sealing is abusing mechanics and it's against fair play rules. (if we will know after the siege who gets the gems) you don't have boxclans in dimensional sieges.


    if you will not change it, most powerfull clan now will be more and more powerfull... if a random clan would receive those stones it would be a lot of adena for them so they can get plvl, gear, and other stuff.
     
    kisseta and nuhnbzhz like this.
  19. vvvlm

    vvvlm User

    Joined:
    04.12.11
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    567
    i'm sorry but in no scenario random clans should be able to get pvp weapon stone.
     
  20. syzgod

    syzgod User

    Joined:
    13.12.11
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    96
    randoms would care less if pvp armor stone will be farmable in some other way or something anyway. or atleast any kind of farm will be possible.