Siege Defense sack earning. A small proposal to make it a little better.

    • Siege Defense sack earning. A small proposal to make it a little better.

      So, first we had a system that earned you 15 sacks for every win, which I thought was great.

      However, it was also a design flaw opening up a hole in the maze that could be used to farm sacks using the so-called suicide sieges. That hole in the maze has been closed with the new system. Makes a lot of sense to me.

      The thing is, currently wins from cheaper keeps do not bring in significant sacks. 1 sack for 1000g is not a lot. The keep has to win several times for that to even become 2 sacks. Let's face it: most of the keeps will always be put up for 1000g since that is the cheapest amount. It is offset by earning twice as many sacks per hour now. So in total the amount of sacks that you win is still going to be reasonable most of the time, maybe just a little less. What it is however lacking now is a feelgood experience from winning. It really doesn't matter that much if your 1000g siege wins a couple of times or not at all, the amount of sacks stays mostly the same.

      What i'm proposing is very simple: reward a win! Add 1 sack extra to earn per hour rate after every win. If my keep beats an attacker after 12 hours it will earn 3 more sacks at hour 13 instead of 2. If it wins again at hour 20 it will then earn 4 more sacks at hour 21.

      Obviously there may be some figures involved relating to caps and whether the initial hour rate should go back to 1 when wins add +1 to the hour rate. I'll leave those figures up to you as you know exactly what you have intended should be the average speed in which you wish to give out Siege Sacks and I don't. But if it fits I'd request to implement it this way to enhance the experience.
      "Ignorant beliefs are stains upon the mind."
    • I like the idea of increasing the hourly rate for wins; yes, it's still potentially 'game-able' but it also makes it very easy for someone else to swoop in and snatch up a growing keep later since it's still building over time, etc. -- and you're ultimately not having that much growth and it's still less effective to 'trade' than the new exchange setups folks have devised.
    • I was unaware that you could abuse it before, so I am earning my saks the hard way.

      And listing a keep for 1 sack just to have it sit there for 24 hours for it to be "worth it" to attack, just seems so terrible.

      Now I get to re-list my siege def every three days for a GRAND TOTAL of 70 sacks.

      But attacking is much less fun, every player worth attacking has a mono ruby deck on slot three, and apparently always get to go first, and then it's a coinflip at best

      Paying gold to play for 45 minutes with no reward.... come on, Ill take my stupid 75 sacks every three days. 300/5000 for the battleboard collected already...

      I so want hex to be fun to play, but when all I can do is grind, and leave it at a coinflip at the cost of my gold, it is not fun, not at all.
    • Enyeez wrote:

      I was unaware that you could abuse it before, so I am earning my saks the hard way.

      And listing a keep for 1 sack just to have it sit there for 24 hours for it to be "worth it" to attack, just seems so terrible.

      Now I get to re-list my siege def every three days for a GRAND TOTAL of 70 sacks.

      But attacking is much less fun, every player worth attacking has a mono ruby deck on slot three, and apparently always get to go first, and then it's a coinflip at best

      Paying gold to play for 45 minutes with no reward.... come on, Ill take my stupid 75 sacks every three days. 300/5000 for the battleboard collected already...

      I so want hex to be fun to play, but when all I can do is grind, and leave it at a coinflip at the cost of my gold, it is not fun, not at all.
      You get 48 sacks every day, so if your keep is up for three days, you should get nearly 150 sacks, not only 75. Getting 48 sacks a day, you'll be able to get the battleboard in three months by doing nothing but relisting your keep even if you never actually attack anyone.
    • Steric wrote:

      Enyeez wrote:

      I was unaware that you could abuse it before, so I am earning my saks the hard way.

      And listing a keep for 1 sack just to have it sit there for 24 hours for it to be "worth it" to attack, just seems so terrible.

      Now I get to re-list my siege def every three days for a GRAND TOTAL of 70 sacks.

      But attacking is much less fun, every player worth attacking has a mono ruby deck on slot three, and apparently always get to go first, and then it's a coinflip at best

      Paying gold to play for 45 minutes with no reward.... come on, Ill take my stupid 75 sacks every three days. 300/5000 for the battleboard collected already...

      I so want hex to be fun to play, but when all I can do is grind, and leave it at a coinflip at the cost of my gold, it is not fun, not at all.
      You get 48 sacks every day, so if your keep is up for three days, you should get nearly 150 sacks, not only 75. Getting 48 sacks a day, you'll be able to get the battleboard in three months by doing nothing but relisting your keep even if you never actually attack anyone.
      That sounds so boring though. I thought this was supposed to be a game for playing, not just listing something once every 3 days. (Makes siege sound like AH.)

      Something like 2 sacks per win might encourage a bit more action?
    • xbete wrote:

      Steric wrote:

      Enyeez wrote:

      I was unaware that you could abuse it before, so I am earning my saks the hard way.

      And listing a keep for 1 sack just to have it sit there for 24 hours for it to be "worth it" to attack, just seems so terrible.

      Now I get to re-list my siege def every three days for a GRAND TOTAL of 70 sacks.

      But attacking is much less fun, every player worth attacking has a mono ruby deck on slot three, and apparently always get to go first, and then it's a coinflip at best

      Paying gold to play for 45 minutes with no reward.... come on, Ill take my stupid 75 sacks every three days. 300/5000 for the battleboard collected already...

      I so want hex to be fun to play, but when all I can do is grind, and leave it at a coinflip at the cost of my gold, it is not fun, not at all.
      You get 48 sacks every day, so if your keep is up for three days, you should get nearly 150 sacks, not only 75. Getting 48 sacks a day, you'll be able to get the battleboard in three months by doing nothing but relisting your keep even if you never actually attack anyone.
      That sounds so boring though. I thought this was supposed to be a game for playing, not just listing something once every 3 days. (Makes siege sound like AH.)
      Something like 2 sacks per win might encourage a bit more action?
      Well, that's kind of the problem with Siege. The ones actually playing are the attackers, but the current system just does not provide a particularly enjoyable experience for most players attacking.

      As for the original suggestion, I don't really like it because it makes it so that a keep that is being ignored will stay ignored while keeps that have already gotten attention get more attention. It makes it so that getting lucky and having that one random PS4 player attack your keep becomes a large increase in your total sacks over the next few days and if you get unlucky and get no attacks, your keep continues getting no attacks since it doesn't have many sacks.

      Assuming the current rate of sack acquisition is too low, I think just upping the sacks per hour to 4 or 5 is probably the better way to go about it as opposed to granting sacks for winning.
    • Steric wrote:



      As for the original suggestion, I don't really like it because it makes it so that a keep that is being ignored will stay ignored while keeps that have already gotten attention get more attention. It makes it so that getting lucky and having that one random PS4 player attack your keep becomes a large increase in your total sacks over the next few days and if you get unlucky and get no attacks, your keep continues getting no attacks since it doesn't have many sacks.

      Assuming the current rate of sack acquisition is too low, I think just upping the sacks per hour to 4 or 5 is probably the better way to go about it as opposed to granting sacks for winning.
      Your keep will still get sacks even if it's not attacked just like it is currently. There is no change to that at all.

      Just upping the sacks per hour doesn't change anything at all it just gives out more siege sacks instead of rewarding wins.

      I think you're approaching my suggestion with the idea that you wish to farm sacks faster, whereas the suggestion is intended to make the experience of winning a better one than it currently is.
      "Ignorant beliefs are stains upon the mind."
    • Currently my after work time consists of :

      Log in to hex, check siege status and relist it if it was taken down, then play 1-2 battles in a dungeon. log off and look at twitch. cook food, start idle game.

      Siege has turned from a game mode to a chore. A chore i could realistically choose not to do...
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
      • Commisioner Pravin Lal - Alpha Centauri
    • Steric wrote:

      As for the original suggestion, I don't really like it because it makes it so that a keep that is being ignored will stay ignored while keeps that have already gotten attention get more attention. It makes it so that getting lucky and having that one random PS4 player attack your keep becomes a large increase in your total sacks over the next few days and if you get unlucky and get no attacks, your keep continues getting no attacks since it doesn't have many sacks.

      Assuming the current rate of sack acquisition is too low, I think just upping the sacks per hour to 4 or 5 is probably the better way to go about it as opposed to granting sacks for winning.

      I think small hourly increase with a small bonus per win is better, rather than one or the other. 2 per hour and 2 per win seems reasonable in combination with the bonus for starting gold. Anything that encourages more attacks in general is desirable, even if some of those attacks will be concentrated on certain keeps. The only problem I would see arising is an increased prevalence of 3x chronodaemon / 3x mono ruby / etc. style defenses (but that's why I have "boring, don't bother attacking" list.)
    • xbete wrote:

      Steric wrote:

      As for the original suggestion, I don't really like it because it makes it so that a keep that is being ignored will stay ignored while keeps that have already gotten attention get more attention. It makes it so that getting lucky and having that one random PS4 player attack your keep becomes a large increase in your total sacks over the next few days and if you get unlucky and get no attacks, your keep continues getting no attacks since it doesn't have many sacks.

      Assuming the current rate of sack acquisition is too low, I think just upping the sacks per hour to 4 or 5 is probably the better way to go about it as opposed to granting sacks for winning.
      I think small hourly increase with a small bonus per win is better, rather than one or the other. 2 per hour and 2 per win seems reasonable in combination with the bonus for starting gold. Anything that encourages more attacks in general is desirable, even if some of those attacks will be concentrated on certain keeps. The only problem I would see arising is an increased prevalence of 3x chronodaemon / 3x mono ruby / etc. style defenses (but that's why I have "boring, don't bother attacking" list.)
      Well, they could limit card usage same way they limit champion usage.