Game Development: Whirling Radii

[DonVelD]

i gotta say, of all the cringe stuff i've seen on these forums someone using an alt account to try to agree with their own posts is pretty up there

i remember getting banned for much less in the past, but what do i know

What if we're all madnomads alt accounts and this whole thread is some schizo act

[shubla]

Siege will never be fair, its waste of time to think how it could be. It will always be 100% certain win or lose, depending only on how strong attacker/defenders are relatively and how much time they can use.

Devs are very very stupid not to realize how bad siege is. They lose hundreds if not thousands of players to this, and those will never come back as their memories of the game will be ever so toxic. Only people who benefit from current siege system are few strong players who only play this game and do not feel empathy or sympathy towards anybody. I don't know what are they paying devs with, their asses? to keep the system like this? I hope devs would stop thinking only with their sinful lusts and be reasonable even for once and fix siege.

[DoctorCookie]

Fascinating how all the zero post accounts arrive in lock step to unanimously agree on something without having any ability to explain why they agree on it

Arriving in lockstep to push the status quo along with the same 5 dudes over and over is your entire posting history.

[strpk0]

Fascinating how all the zero post accounts arrive in lock step to unanimously agree on something without having any ability to explain why they agree on it

Arriving in lockstep to push the status quo along with the same 5 dudes over and over is your entire posting history.

the "status quo" of being able to play the game lmfao
everything that has been posted thus far that is "anti status quo" is "disable pvp", "disable siege", "change combat to be hamfisted and stupid"

you know, some people actually play the game and don't just post everything with malice/victim mentality syndrome

[MadNomad]

everything that has been posted thus far that is "anti status quo" is "disable pvp", "disable siege", "change combat to be hamfisted and stupid"

where?

[strpk0]

everything that has been posted thus far that is "anti status quo" is "disable pvp", "disable siege", "change combat to be hamfisted and stupid"

where?

oh forgot to add, also this idiot trying to bait people into arguments with stupid repeated questions that don't go anywhere

[MadNomad]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out which part does that, because so far not so many parts like this are seen

you are making up too many things

it's as if you didn't read nor try to comprehend it

[telum12]

If you game out the siege system, it obviously favours the defender. All things equal, defenders will win. Of course, this does not mean that a village of 3 nabs who barely log in will be able to defend against a faction.

The people freaking out about the siege system don't seem to recognise how annoying it is to siege. Why would multiple faction people spend their time sieging 3 random nabs? They wouldn't. In almost all such cases the random nabs are people like Shubla or MadNomad which have annoyed people so much that they're willing to spend their free time sitting on rams for potentially days in order to fuck with them. This does not mean that the siege system balance is broken, just that an overwhelming force can still win.

From what I gather from other people who actually perform sieges, most people don't bother actually defending. This means that sieging goes from being a super aids to bearable. Those people then take to the forums complaining. It's the most farcical thing ever.

This is not in support of the siege system. If someone has an actual, concrete idea about how the siege system could be replaced, great. Just whining about some imaginary imbalance based off of your feelings isn't helpful.

PS. I and a lot of other people will 100% babysit a ram to siege MadNomad if anyone knows where they live

[MadNomad]

do you mean that a situation where the game requires you to be chained to computer with little amount of time to notice threat if you are not is a good one?

do you think that the defenders should have 0% chance of defending just because they have slightly weaker force?

defensive actions should have some advantage

[SnuggleSnail]

From what I gather from other people who actually perform sieges, most people don't bother actually defending. This means that sieging goes from being a super aids to bearable. Those people then take to the forums complaining. It's the most farcical thing ever.

lol I remember when I sieged DoctorCookie they had 5-10 active players, some portion of which were online and moving around during the entire 36 hour period before we broke into the first wall. You know what they did during their 180-360 potential man hours to defend? Build exactly 3 archery towers & make like 100 forum/discord posts about it. Nothing more, nothing less.

"wahhh I shouldn't lose in PVP if my strategy is to literally do nothing under any circumstances ever. PVP/siege is broken wahhh"