This topic is closed

Sieging Cities

16 Replies
striper26
31 March, 2016, 5:28 AM UTC

Will Plarium address how sieging someone is almost useless?  




The person who sieges they get some resources.. the person being sieged the lose a little resources but now they can build all they want for the most part...



Sieging should be more confining for the person being sieged.. No real consequences... At least in my opinion this should be looked at and adjusted.


Perhaps if your sieged you can not build troops.. or send troops out and if you do they best be enough to break the siege or the too get destroyed.. 



Just a thought..
UTC +0:00
RIX
31 March, 2016, 10:59 AM UTC
Best thing to do is remove the feature all together.  The point of the game is technically to allow players to join for free in hopes that they may spend some money.  If you were sieged by someone who placed 5000 Thureo or Mounted Pelts into your city and you could not use the account to continue to build and raid then the only other logical thing is to quit.  Sure you can ask other players to help but who wants to risk losing that kind of infantry to liberate you?
A T H E N A
UTC -5:00
john_zed
31 March, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

Earlier many times changes regarding sieges were proposed. But changing prevailing system can be very troublesome for many players, to be precise - new players.

Thank you for the suggestion though  

Have Fun :)
UTC +0:00
striper26
31 March, 2016, 10:09 PM UTC

So Jon,




Instead of working through a troublesome problem and coming up with a solution that would make sense to siege.. So there are consequences to the party Plarium chooses to ignore it.. 




Sieging would be a great way to slow coalitions down that for example do not have a PAN but hits other Coalitions PANS.  One can siege their city but so what now they lose a little resource but have a someone keeping them safe..


So they can hit people and really have no consequence. 




And it would not be that troublesome put a resource limit on the city being sieged as you do with Emporium wants the resource limit is reached the siege is removed.




Plarium receive I assume a nice amount of money and have good programmers I assume you all could come up with a better solution and not have the comment its a "troublesome "



Regards

UTC +0:00
ItBurnsWhenIPvP
31 March, 2016, 10:32 PM UTC
The point of sieges is not to make people quit the game. If by your proposal they could do nothing until they broke the siege many would just quit. Not everyone is in a huge coalition and has millions of units. Plarium isn't going to add a feature that would possibly make people quit the game that would just be silly.
Learn Adapt and Overcome
UTC +0:00
Hundigo
31 March, 2016, 11:45 PM UTC

I have sieged a player that was mentioned by an administratror, even with the coords of that player 

  totally outreached of course of that administrator  .  


it's in the game a called "protection siege" So I sieged that city/player, but no ones attacks him sieing my lvl I have self. 

I protect that player against a top 10 coalition.   That player I have under siege may of course has his gameplay and he knews it. 



So restricting players under siege isn't a good idea, unless you use it as protection siege like I do, then you have to fight me first and then my siege I have/had 
UTC +0:00
ThatBloke
1 April, 2016, 12:11 AM UTC

You could also reinforce him instead of besieging him.


I pity the fool
UTC +11:00
Hundigo
1 April, 2016, 12:56 AM UTC

A siege has much more effect. When you reinforce that player , you shall have more players that attacks him, because the points they get from it. And they doesn't know you help that player. 


When that player is under siege by you, then they have to face you (or able to face you) also directly .  Because when they try to brake the siege, they have to battle against my troops I have in that city.  The one I besieged at that moment doesn't see any of the troops involved in that battle. The besieger can't see my troops I have in that city and defend at that moment and also can't see  the troops the attacker used for it.  


It's also called a "friendly siege" means I don't absorbe resources neither from that player. He can do whatever he likes and he don't need my permission for it .   


And specially seen the situation that "administrator " had placed that player in the game with the post that administrator wrote , I was gladly to help that player out 
UTC +0:00
ThatBloke
1 April, 2016, 1:06 AM UTC

Oh yes, so you're using your reputation to frighten his ennemies by making your presense visible ? ;)



Where is the post you're quoting, please ?


I pity the fool
UTC +11:00
Hundigo
1 April, 2016, 1:31 AM UTC

it was either the opposite. Friends of mine saw the post of that administrator before me. They all knew, when Hundigo gonna see that post he shall be on it. And I was. 

Later this evening , when I saw my friends in RL, I just told them that I picked up a fight at sparta. They all knew about it, even before I had to send out the details.  



The question about the post I'm refering to I don't mention now moderator ThatBloke. I still today protect that player. But you answered also in that post.   His coordinates may be cleaned out, his name is still on the forum. So for that player, I wish to keep it secret. It's not up to an administrator to call out attacks to one specifique player. 
UTC +0:00
ThatBloke
1 April, 2016, 1:40 AM UTC

Of course, I agree with you. His location shouldn't have been made public.



But why are you writing "it's was either the opposite" ?

If you had just reinforced him, your presence wouldt have been unconspicuous.

By besieging him instead, you're making your presence obvious.

I thought you were using this as a warning to tell other people you were protecting him, but if you write "it's the either the opposite", then do you mean you're signalling his location so other people will know where he is ? Don't you fear some PvP hunters would raid this city to get easy points ?


I pity the fool
UTC +11:00
Hundigo
1 April, 2016, 9:10 AM UTC

"By either the opposite"  is that the intention of the siege for me wasn't for the resources or that I had a foe with that player in the game. 

So the siege was indeed to make the presence clear. 

PVP hunters, you can always have, but in this case here, more players know that the siege has other meanings 


 
UTC +0:00
striper26
1 April, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

My apologize I guess I was too vague.


So I will make it more simple


So say COALITION A  HAS 5 PANS.... They defend the PANS...


COALITION B  HAS NO PANS....


Coalition B attacks  Coalition A PANs non stop...


So Coalition A sieges Coalition B cities..


What is the downside for Coalition B?  Not much a little resources lost... they can still while siege send out attacks... build troops.. and they have someone that is sitting on their city so they wont lose resources that they are accruing or possibly be attacked. 


So it seems that Coalition A is getting the short end of the stick...


I believe that there should more of a  consequence when sieging..


Plarium could make it like Emporiums or like resource collecting...


And new players I would assume are low levels do not attacks PANS... and would be warned most likely...


I just think being sieged should have more consequences so if a player chooses to raid a PAN, a player or another sieged city and they understand the outcome may not be that pleasant...


Regards
UTC +0:00
RIX
2 April, 2016, 11:47 AM UTC
You are right about what you are saying. In my honest opinion, when you capture and hold Pantheons, you are signing a "sitting duck" agreement for such privilege.  It is unfortunate but reality.
A T H E N A
UTC -5:00
sitka
7 April, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

So if someone wanna boost quickly his resources, he should better not siege, but rather raid the city? 

Raiding causes many resources quickly.


What should a person do to boost his resources faster than his neighbours?
UTC +2:00
morteeee
Moderator
10 April, 2016, 9:35 AM UTC
scouting then raiding a res stacked city is always more profitable in the short term for res gathering, I only keep 3 sieges and I only hold them with 1 hero unit so if I get bumped off them it doesnt cost me anything 
History is written by the victors
UTC +1:00
ThatBloke
10 April, 2016, 9:54 AM UTC

You usually siege either for daily quests, or for coalition challenges.


It also gives you additional resources you get by just clicking from times to times...


I pity the fool
UTC +11:00
1667124 users registered; 34131 topic; 253854 posts; our newest member:loper1018