Gradishar

I think you have us confused for Death…but regardless…you have a link to this allegedly streamed evidence?

I couldn't agree more. Allow PDMs to stack again. Restore all of the talent PDMs back to where they were. Reduce Protection Stakes to 10/15. Increase resistance provided by crafted armor at the blue/purple/orange crafted milestones. Add armor enhancements which add HPs based upon the type of armor enhanced (100hps for leather, 250hps for chain, 500hps for plate). Reduce the DmgMod/HealMod enhancements from armor to incentivize wearing the more restricted armor types. ie leather/chain/plate chest pieces would go from 5/2.5/0 to 3/1.5/0 or even 2/1/0. Review all pens/breaks and reduce them to lower the effective damage. However, maintain their current stacking to encourage coordination and preparation. Diversity these so encourage more diverse damage types and different spec groups (disease pens/breaks, poison, nature should all be examined to diversity the organic damage which is largely ignored). As an aside...the adding of Resist All to the promotion class will in no way incentivize the wearing of plate or chain. It simply means that the Paladin will be tankier while still wearing leather to maximize their healing mod.

It’s a legitimate issue. The loudest opponents to a siege reservation system aren’t advocating for breaking up their alliances or forming smaller guilds. Limits on alliance and guild sizes would be a positive change IMHO. Unfortunately, I dont see them as solving the real problem here and the work around in forming multiple alliances to maintain your numeric superiority are just to easy.

I don’t champion unlocking AoE caps because its a terrible idea. The larger force will simply have more AoEs. Mechanics which favor coordination, timing and skill is what allows groups to punch up. Effective debuffs, more effective armor/dmg mitigation, group spec benefits, rewarding target calling and effective group movement…not idiotic aoe spam. The Zerg can spam just as easily as the small group…and deliver damage with even less coordination, organization or skill. Why on god’s green earth would we want that?

Yeah…that’ll work…

No politics for help? They cant immediately ally other small guilds and defend their small keep with 67 against the attackers 83? How does a 15 man guild hold a small keep against a 200 man force now? A force that can zone lock them out from defending completely?

And so Death forms Death1 and Death2 and while they have to siege from separate sides of the castle to avoid friendly fire, they are just as able to zone cap every zone they want as they were prior to the reduction in guild sizes. Has anything been solved?

Small and medium sized guilds…be content with knowing that any assets you control, you do so because the Death MegaZerg allows it. Rest easy that their benevolence will be forthcoming and that while they can take your assets at any time, they will restrain themselves. Any mechanics which might give you a fighting chance and allow you to defend your assets against a larger force “[are] such a bad idea” and must be prevented to ensure original game design promises that the zergs would always rule.

You really dont like the idea of having to defend your assets with only 45% of the zone do you?

“W” …to my knowledge is just me. There’s a lot of “W” that doesnt like this idea. Guess why? We’re a big alliance just like Death. Death’s normal “lets blame W” for whatever we don’t like is tired and played out. Death is pushing against this system because it works against their mega Zerg alliance and their ability to overpower anyone and everyone that cant match their numbers. No one bought CF to get zone locked out of sieges. While this may not be a perfect fix, it does prevent mindless and boring zone caping…which absolutely IS a real issue. I absolutely support a system that ensures a real fight. Death, obviously, is happy with the existing system which does not.

1) Zone locks were a part of at least 2 sieges this week. 2) Smaller guilds being “cut out of larger” fights…ie currently participating on the sidelines IF they can get in the zone…vs actually being able to hold assets and compete against the large guilds? That’s the travesty here? A 60 man guild holding a small keep against all comers…vs a 10 man guild holding a respawn…thats what we’re talking about here right? You’ve got me. I’m biased and find that a 60 man guild standing up to a 200 man Zerg is a hell of a lot more engaging gameplay than a 10 man guild holding a respawn for 10 minutes. YMMV. 3) The buying your way out of sieges is an issue. The safeguards against that must be real for this to work. Pre-planting fight opportunities…costs associated with planting…costs associated with losing/fake planting…all must absolutely be explored and considered. That “problem” doesnt override the existing problem with the broken system. ACE just needs workable solutions to that additional issue.

McTan did an excellent job not talking down to folks who disagreed with him. GG. Everyone just needs to look at how hard the largest alliance in the game is pushing against this. Talking down to anyone who disagrees and ignoring any real discussion.

Probably your GL.

Screwing over small guilds? In what world? How can a small guild defend themselves against you under the current system? They cant…they have ZERO chance. Now…under the new system…if they have a small keep with a siege zone cap of 150…the 400 man death Zerg can only bring 82. Now…thats a fighting chance for the small guilds and small alliances. With guards and walls and good gameplay…their 67 may actually be successful. How can those 67 stand up to 183 Death flooding into the zone under the current system? (Assuming you dont completely zone cap it before they get in their 67..which you CAN do under the existing system). Seriously…if I were a small guild…I’d be singing hallelujah for this new system.

Often. The zone becoming locked happens at almost every contested siege.