Belantis

The current alliance system could be reworked into a system that creates a dynamic of Throne War. I don't think that limiting alliance size or player amount further is the answer. As I see it there are a few improvements possible: An alliance building (or shrine) in a Keep required to start an alliance, each level giving you more alliance slots. This would entice guilds to make choices: build the walls and guards first or the bell tower or an alliance building? Also it would mean alliances grow over time and some choices will have to be made which guilds to pick first. Guilds only random cards each season: with a small chance of cards like betrayal (leaving the alliance for the duration of the campaign) giving the guild a huge amount of scoring points. Or a thievery card giving you the opportunity to plunder chests in a alliance Keep! First-mover disadvantage: the bigger the alliance, the bigger the burden, meaning higher maintenance costs on guards (yes we need maintenance costs too 😄) or a scoring points penalty for example. Feel free to comment!

Yes @McTan I did read the update! Sure we can experiment with a mega US-EU server but my assessment is that a separate EU Dregs server is better on the long run. I also pointed out other issues like the fact that ACE needs to acknowledge the fact that a big portion of its players are from the EU. We need a EU distributor asap!

Hello fellow Crows, I'm in favor of a successful EU Dregs server. The EU has 449 million inhabitants, this is a huge potential and Crowfall needs to be promoted more in our part of the world. For me playing on a unified US-EU Dregs server isn't a solution as the timezones will always be a problem. Maybe we need a european distributor for Crowfall, Maybe ACE needs to start marketing The game properly!! This is why I decided to start this petition, also for the silent minority of EU players. So if you're in favor let your voice be heard! What can we as players do to make a thriving EU Dregs server happen? What can we expect from ACE? @Tiggs 🙂

Les Mousquetaires du Clic recrutent! Rejoignez-nous sur notre Discord pour plus d'informations: https://discord.gg/bX2U9Zgz5z

We need to bring the concept of plunder in the process of sieging because, like inventary loot, stealing eachother's stuff is fun and exiting. Also high risk, high reward should be central to sieging. So after the attackers is victorious they would for example loot the gold reserve deposit from the defenders that scales with the Keeps level (this is @Chillmate idea, Level 1 Keep = 5k gold on chest, Level 2 Keep = 10k gold in chest ect). That way winning a siege would be worth it.

Thank you for sharing this build!

In ancient times, sacrifice was performed as a ritual to communicate with the gods, heroes, and other divine beings. Such rituals were meant to ask the divine recipients for favours, protection, and help, or to appease them. Animals sacrifice, in which prayer was central, was also a way for human worshippers to know the will of the gods. Therefore I propose to change the current way to get buffs at God's outposts: you need not only to control the outpost but also to sacrifice specific items to get the buff, for example player skulls for Malekai. Or to make it even more realistic it would require you to sacrifice caravan pigs to the God's to get their buff. Maybe different types of sacrifices could have different outcomes.

On the LIVE server, Sky Point, a lvl40 Herald one shot me. This mob is also a stealther 😅

Badges? Is this the forum NPE?

I concur!

@Pystkeebler I agree with the above. In fact, the pinnacle of Dregs which are sieges should lead to pillaging if successful. By this I mean that "stuff" from the enemy Keep should be available to the winner of the siege. It should be "stuff" from the enemy players. Right know it is easy to stock it away in banks, this has to change. We need Keeps to be alluring loot wise. That means they have to become loot Piñatas that contain all the hard work of the gatherers.

@McTan I too am worried about the future of Crowfall and I read your post as a cry from the heart. But let’s not be defeatistic or too pessimistic either A long time ago I played an mmo called Shadowbane. There were much of the beautiful, much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible, and not a little of that which might have excited exasperation in that game. Much like Crowfall. If the devs achieve their goals we might see elements of Shadowbane combined with modern gaming features which could make tCrowfall a success. Instead of speaking of ‘Death on Arrival’ and hopping on the defeatist bandwagon I would rather speak of crossroads at which Crowfall is situated. Will it be an easy mode, fast food game or a high quality throne war mmo? Alot of great ideas to achieve the latter have already been expressed here. I would like to propose an old idea of mine: it would be great to add networks to the campaign worlds. By networks I mean connections of nodes, for example forts, outpost, shrines, caravan spawn points to the main starter or mother node, the Keep. Creating a network provides advantages. The nodes need to be connected to the central Keep. These networks exist in one zone: the scope of your network is determined by upgrades of the central Keep. So, if your Keep is rank 1 you’ll be allowed a network of 3 nodes, at rank 2 you progress to 6 nodes ect. (this is just a rough estimation). Such networks could give the players a true zone control experience. For example connecting your Keep (provided you have the right building) to a caravan spawn point node will allow you to have the caravans run by themselves to the Keep. Of course, you would still be able to tame the pack pigs yourself and run those manually. Another example: connecting shrine nodes to your Keep could be beneficial or detrimental if two opposing divinities are involved, resulting in loss of divine favor. It would still be possible to own multiple Keeps (in one zone or other zones) and so to create multiple networks, even connecting Keeps with each other in one zone, which would provide the owners with new sets of advantages. When you look deeper in the history of sieging, you’ll notice that a city or keep would eventually fall when it was cut off form its the hinterland, mainly because of starvation. Hence the idea of shutting off certain defenses (spires, guards) in Keeps if some nodes are conquered by enemy guilds. Owning forts, outposts and shrines would create a power grid that players need to expand and to defend. What is needed is also the concept of maintenance. Keeps with buildings, guards ect should have a cost in maintenance and while the network you create provides you with resources, it will also be fragile if not planned ahead well.