Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Why only 1 keep per day?


Frankenwulf
 Share

Recommended Posts

The big alliances in dregs are right now are aco, anki, and death. They own all of the keeps and yet only 1 keep can be sieged per day. That's not a good thing for the game. The largest alliances being able to defend every keep they have one day at a time, instead of potentially having two keeps (or more) to defend at one time in which they would have to either split their force or decide which keep(s) are better for them to try and hold onto. Do you get what im saying? They could potentially own every single keep in the game and still only need to defend one keep per day! That's hogwash man. 

Edited by Frankenwulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Frankenwulf said:

The big alliances in dregs are right now are aco, anki, and death. They own all of the keeps and yet only 1 keep can be sieged per day. That's not a good thing for the game. The largest alliances being able to defend every keep they have every day instead of potentially having two keeps to defend at one time they would have to either split their force or decide which keep is better for them to have. Do you get what im saying? They could potentially own every single keep in the game and still only need to defend one keep per day! That's hogwash man. 

Fully agree with this! If an alliance has a numbers to win a single siege, they currently have the numbers to win all of the sieges. Also why I believe handshake sieges are just going to be more problematic than a solution.

The siege event schedule should be more dynamic and have guilds/alliances make choices on how to spread their numbers out. There was an idea in another thread that mentioned an alliances keeps all going up for siege at the same time which makes perfect sense. Hell, you could just have all keeps in a campaign go up at once so if you decide to send out an attacking force you may be susceptible to leaving your keep open to an attack. Having single keeps open at a time takes the strategy out of the game and makes the fights even more about numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MurphyAKL said:

The siege event schedule should be more dynamic and have guilds/alliances make choices on how to spread their numbers out. There was an idea in another thread that mentioned an alliances keeps all going up for siege at the same time which makes perfect sense.

Take note devs. This is a great idea and would produce more fierce competition. It also forces larger alliances to spread out their forces and give smaller alliances a chance to attack and take keeps. Please fix the poor implementation of your schedule in dregs before this campaign is over. I want to see more competition, not just the bandwagoners joining the top 3 to ensure they "win". MORE COMPETITION, NOT LESS! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should just delete siege schedule. its a joke,

Greatly reduce guild/alliance size along with deletion of schedule would create alot more "fierce competition"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was firmly in the camp of lowering alliance/guild numbers, creating more keeps, and forcing large alliances to defend more than one keep at a time before my guild joined ANKI alliance (which we did before Dregs started) 

And I still am. 

Not only would this allow smaller alliances and Guilds a chance at a keep, but it would also make only having to defend one keep more viable, since attackers that own a keep would have to defend theirs first.

You can blob defense. You can blob offense. If you try to do both, you might fail at both. 

This has the potential to reduce the initial wave of attackers at a keep (minus any superb diplomat that can amass a vastly superior force), which, in turn, allows a smaller force to potentially defend the keep by destroying their Bane trees before the other Alliances can mass up to steam roll them.  This, then,  incentivizes the smaller guilds to potentially attack on their own, thus making it harder to convince so many smaller guilds to join the blob.

The other likely possibility is that you get more than 3 "massive" guilds/alliances fighting over one keep. It creates more opportunity for sabotage if multiple guilds outside of an alliance help each other, then decide they could finish off their prior-allies to get the keep.  (Not that anyone would do this, because we all play nice together).

Creating simultaneous sieges democratizes the process to actually get a keep for Guilds/Alliances in the 30-40 player range,  and doesn't support Uncle Bob tactically or diplomatically. 

Edited by Solstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Solstar said:

I was firmly in the camp of lowering alliance/guild numbers, creating more keeps, and forcing large alliances to defend more than one keep at a time before my guild joined ANKI alliance (which we did before Dregs started) 

And I still am. 

Not only would this allow smaller alliances and Guilds a chance at a keep, but it would also make only having to defend one keep more viable, since attackers that own a keep would have to defend theirs first.

You can blob defense. You can blob offense. If you try to do both, you might fail at both. 

This has the potential to reduce the initial wave of attackers at a keep (minus any superb diplomat that can amass a vastly superior force), which, in turn, allows a smaller force to potentially defend the keep by destroying their Bane trees before the other Alliances can mass up to steam roll them.  This, then,  incentivizes the smaller guilds to potentially attack on their own, thus making it harder to convince so many smaller guilds to join the blob.

The other likely possibility is that you get more than 3 "massive" guilds/alliances fighting over one keep. It creates more opportunity for sabotage if multiple guilds outside of an alliance help each other, then decide they could finish off their prior-allies to get the keep.  (Not that anyone would do this, because we all play nice together).

Creating simultaneous sieges democratizes the process to actually get a keep for Guilds/Alliances in the 30-40 player range,  and doesn't support Uncle Bob tactically or diplomatically. 

Yep, seems like a good choice from a design perspective and dev effort (extremely minimal).

Would be great if we saw more iterative changes to the game rather than large design documents, monthly version updates and slow turn around time on improvements to existing features or bugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2021 at 1:34 AM, MurphyAKL said:

Fully agree with this! If an alliance has a numbers to win a single siege, they currently have the numbers to win all of the sieges. Also why I believe handshake sieges are just going to be more problematic than a solution.

This is true only if you can field the same numbers at different times every day. The reason for the current map is mainly a reflection of your strength given the siege schedule.

Nothing Personal alliance managed to sneak Keep Walls in at the start of Dregs in NA West (Psyche), to the surprise of all the other big alliances at the time. Death took the other Keep in the map. After coming to an agreement that it made sense as smaller alliances at the time, and that we shouldn't attack each other, we naturally formed a new alliance. The "Death ain't Personal" alliance is a product of that.

Our small guild has gone along for the ride from being in the smaller Nothing Personal alliance from the last Dregs as well.

On 10/21/2021 at 1:34 AM, MurphyAKL said:

The siege event schedule should be more dynamic and have guilds/alliances make choices on how to spread their numbers out. There was an idea in another thread that mentioned an alliances keeps all going up for siege at the same time which makes perfect sense. Hell, you could just have all keeps in a campaign go up at once so if you decide to send out an attacking force you may be susceptible to leaving your keep open to an attack. Having single keeps open at a time takes the strategy out of the game and makes the fights even more about numbers.

In the last Dregs, we had 2 Keeps up at the same time on the map, but two Keeps to attack also splits the attackers. If you pile onto one of the Keeps as the attackers, the defenders can follow or log into their character at the respective Keep, or just send a group from the other Keep, the distances aren't large. While the attackers need to defend 6 bane trees. It's not such an easy proposition. Spreading across maps splits the attackers more than the defenders, there is defenders advantage.

With the current Dregs, the initially largest and winning alliance (ANKI) was seen as a potential dominant force. Then ANKI lost Keeps to Aco due to being spread across timezones. Their players aren't able to defend their spread Keeps on all hours of the day. ANKI was coming first, now Acolytes are. Death Ain't Personal now is combined and coming 3rd. PRX alliance has fizzled. This Dregs is pretty competitive. 

If you're a small guild, think about joining one of the three big alliances if you want to participate there. You might be a kingmaker depending on your strength as well. All the alliances will be courting any un-allied guilds. I believe there are some un-allied guilds playing the game just fine. If they want a Keep, just join an alliance. There are slots free in every big alliance, alliance cap is now 15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2021 at 1:01 AM, Frankenwulf said:

The big alliances in dregs are right now are aco, anki, and death. They own all of the keeps and yet only 1 keep can be sieged per day. That's not a good thing for the game. The largest alliances being able to defend every keep they have one day at a time, instead of potentially having two keeps (or more) to defend at one time in which they would have to either split their force or decide which keep(s) are better for them to try and hold onto. Do you get what im saying? They could potentially own every single keep in the game and still only need to defend one keep per day! That's hogwash man. 

Death Ain't Personal was originally two much smaller separate alliances. They decided to combine due to various reasons, and there are still slots free since the cap is 15. Every alliance still has slots free if you want to join them and have a Keep, even as a small guild, you will be valuable. Obviously the Death Ain't Personal guys are the coolest, but if you wanna join the others that's on you 😉

Theoretically at the start of the Dregs, people were worried about ANKI taking over every Keep with their numbers and coverage. Now they lost Keeps to Acolytes. Acolytes are beating them on the board now. The largest alliances are actively sieging each other. 

What you are talking about, as a potential thing where one alliance just takes over the whole map, hasn't happened, in fact Keeps are changing hands. Aco has tried to siege ANKI recently and not been able to breach defences, especially based on the differing timezones when different people can bring numbers to defend.

Not everyone in these alliances are playing every day, or sweating to defend every Keep at every hour. The ANKI guys do seems to show up with numbers to defend all the outposts, but that is just their thing. The others guys tend to be more spread during off-siege hours. I feel like everyone is playing pretty casually and having fun in the current Dregs. Everyone is pretty good with the competition.This is by far the funnest I've had in Dregs since launch being in a small guild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2021 at 2:06 AM, Frankenwulf said:

I want to see more competition, not just the bandwagoners joining the top 3 to ensure they "win". MORE COMPETITION, NOT LESS! 

There is plenty of competition for top 3 in Dregs. Alliances have merged or fizzled. Guilds don't get their own personal rewards now if they "bandwagon", so they have to assess if it is worth it to join up. If you just "join" a big alliance and do nothing, then you will probably get nothing as well. Other than "hey I won! I was in the winning alliance woo!", but that isn't really interesting if you just put 10 points on the board by your guild, no-one is kidding themselves who the most contributory guilds are to their war efforts. Small guilds like myself accept that we may not have the highest contribution to their war effort, but they appreciate the support to take on the other alliances, along with our conquest points, and in return we get Keep access, buffs and a few less enemies. We will appreciate that our alliance might do well, but we are aware that we only contributed a small amount.

There might be kingmaker guilds at the end as well depending on how politics works out. Imagine upsetting one of the guilds in your alliance and they switch alliances or threaten that situation. 

Not sure what the story was with the PRX alliance splitting, but up to them if they want to have a Keep or not. They can always join up with other alliances for a Keep, or play the game like the majority of us have been playing for 3 months and see how it goes without a Keep.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2021 at 2:17 AM, Cheech said:

Should just delete siege schedule. its a joke,

Greatly reduce guild/alliance size along with deletion of schedule would create alot more "fierce competition"

This would actually allow one alliance to hold all the Keeps and ensure that is the case. 

The siege schedule currently is making it more difficult for one alliance to take all the keeps, as their strength varies across different times, with the EU centric guilds, US centric guilds, and Asian/Oceanic centric guilds controlling the numbers for their respective timezones and relevant overlaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally there are several keeps per prime time, however with the condensed and combined regions map - that is not possible. The schedule makes the game playable, without it all the things you hate would be significantly worse. Shrinking guild/alliance sizes just removes more people from playing the game, the more you shrink rosters the more the game hinges on whoever can keep the most people online concurrently, pushing anyone that cant reach that same scheduling ability entirely out of the competition. There would be no room to progressively build up or find a way to bring together more casual smaller groups via aggregate, cause the caps would force you to push people out until you hit X top dog concurrency numbers. Less people playing the competitive game space is not good for the game.

xqqtx8P.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2021 at 5:09 AM, Duffy said:

Shrinking guild/alliance sizes just removes more people from playing the game, the more you shrink rosters the more the game hinges on whoever can keep the most people online concurrently, pushing anyone that cant reach that same scheduling ability entirely out of the competition.

I dont understand how making alliance sizes smaller would cause less people to play. The same amount of people would still be playing, but there would just be more alliances vying for control of resources which would create more competition. I also dont understand your reasoning for thinking the current schedule is ok or conducive to anything but the largest alliances being able to control much more than they should be able to control. Should Acolytes really be able to hold 4 keeps? I dont think that's ok for them to be able to defend each keep they have one day at a time. At least 2 of those keeps should be siegeable at the same time. There are no real consequences for spreading yourself too thin since no more than one keep will be up at a time. Not a good thing imo.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Frankenwulf said:

I dont understand how making alliance sizes smaller would cause less people to play. The same amount of people would still be playing, but there would just be more alliances vying for control of resources which would create more competition. I also dont understand your reasoning for thinking the current schedule is ok or conducive to anything but the largest alliances being able to control much more than they should be able to control. Should Acolytes really be able to hold 4 keeps? I dont think that's ok for them to be able to defend each keep they have one day at a time. At least 2 of those keeps should be siegeable at the same time. There are no real consequences for spreading yourself too thin since no more than one keep will be up at a time. Not a good thing imo.  

You push people that cant field X size groups for Y hours per day out of the game. If you can't meet the same time schedule and hours per day as your opponents within a restricted roster, then you cannot compete. It pushes more casual players right out of the game, it's not even worth the energy for them. The great mistake in limiting guild/alliance sizes is assuming that everyone's X is the same, when in the end it comes down to concurrency. You can shrink them all you want, you just make it so soft alliances come back - nothing ultimately changes. In the end they don't win cause of pure numbers, they win cause they can bring more people, more reliably. And while you try to curb them, you knock out everyone who isn't able to keep up with them. The smaller the roster the faaaaar more dependent you are on each and every individual showing up all the time, which limits competition to a particular type of player and group.

The lack of concurrent sieges does suck, but it's because they shrunk the map and have multiple timezones on one map, this is an abnormal state. I dont think it's a good state at all, but they're also maintaining multiple timezones - any other group can do the same. None of the proposed changes will actually stop this, you just make it harder to fight it as there will always be players willing to jump through the hoops and go the extra mile of complications to win.

xqqtx8P.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...