Siege Is Not Accomplishing What I Would Like

    • Siege Is Not Accomplishing What I Would Like

      9/10 sieges on front pages sorted by wins are sitting there at 500 sacks untouched

      Not too long ago these would have been swarmed to be defeated

      But people dont like to gamble, and the siege sack bandaid has already fallen off

      ggwp nice design hexent
    • Airtron wrote:

      9/10 sieges on front pages sorted by wins are sitting there at 500 sacks untouched
      10/10 sieges on front pages sorted by wins have 15 wins or more. That means 15 or more people attempted to claim the reward and failed. Odds are all of these sieges are a combination of the perfect aggro/lifegain/mill trio that is impossible to beat unless you get extremely lucky and the AI gets flooded or resources screwed all 3 games.

      If you set up a demonstratibly unbeatable siege, you can't complain that people are showing up in droves to give you their gold. The top siege has 34 wins. That means they already collected over 2000% of their initial bounty in attacker's fees, and they can retire their siege to collect 10000% of their initial bounty. They should do that.

      If you are posting unbeateable sieges, you are clearly not going after siege sacks. They are going after currency (and fame I guess). The players who get to collect sacks are the ones who build fun, thematic decks that aren't over powered, and are welcoming for attackers to enjoy. People who put up boring overpowered sieges don't deserve sacks, and they can go cry in the massive amount of gold that they already won.

      Looking at the replay tool at this moment, there's been about one siege match per minute over the past 2 hours. While it is not stellar, it is very far from being dead. People are simply attacking sieges that are worth attacking. And no, having 500 siege sacks does not make your siege worth attacking.
    • Fred wrote:

      If you are posting unbeateable sieges, you are clearly not going after siege sacks. They are going after currency (and fame I guess). The players who get to collect sacks are the ones who build fun, thematic decks that aren't over powered, and are welcoming for attackers to enjoy. People who put up boring overpowered sieges don't deserve sacks, and they can go cry in the massive amount of gold that they already won.
      Are you serious? People who put up tough defenses, the actual point of the system, don't deserve it's only exclusive rewards? That's the most fucked logic I have ever heard.
    • Fred wrote:

      Airtron wrote:

      9/10 sieges on front pages sorted by wins are sitting there at 500 sacks untouched
      10/10 sieges on front pages sorted by wins have 15 wins or more. That means 15 or more people attempted to claim the reward and failed. Odds are all of these sieges are a combination of the perfect aggro/lifegain/mill trio that is impossible to beat unless you get extremely lucky and the AI gets flooded or resources screwed all 3 games.
      If you set up a demonstratibly unbeatable siege, you can't complain that people are showing up in droves to give you their gold. The top siege has 34 wins. That means they already collected over 2000% of their initial bounty in attacker's fees, and they can retire their siege to collect 10000% of their initial bounty. They should do that.

      If you are posting unbeateable sieges, you are clearly not going after siege sacks. They are going after currency (and fame I guess). The players who get to collect sacks are the ones who build fun, thematic decks that aren't over powered, and are welcoming for attackers to enjoy. People who put up boring overpowered sieges don't deserve sacks, and they can go cry in the massive amount of gold that they already won.

      Looking at the replay tool at this moment, there's been about one siege match per minute over the past 2 hours. While it is not stellar, it is very far from being dead. People are simply attacking sieges that are worth attacking. And no, having 500 siege sacks does not make your siege worth attacking.
      In a mode where you put currency on the line, you should not ever have to gimp yourself just to get most of what its offering.
    • It's the dumbest system ever created. I had to take my siege down manually after it went unattacked for about 8 days straight (sitting at 500 sack maximum for at least 12 days straight). Then I had to take it down again because it went unattacked for another 5 days and was nearing maximum again. I have a ton of deck ideas I want to try, but I haven't even gotten to test half of them yet, because my first handful happened to be winners. Now, because I posted a good siege (the whole fucking point), I get no reward. It's idiotic design from top to bottom.

      If you want to artificially gate the rewards, make there be a penalty for taking the decks down, but don't erase them entirely. Or make it so you earn siege sacks every time you successfully defend if you're already at 500. There are tons of ways you can do this without punishing people for being good. I shouldn't have to throw currency in the toilet posting a shit deck just to get 10 sacks from the first person who attacks me every time I repost the siege. Every single aspect of this feature was BOTCHED. There's no two ways about it.
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
    • Rendakor wrote:

      Are you serious? People who put up tough defenses, the actual point of the system, don't deserve it's only exclusive rewards? That's the most fucked logic I have ever heard.
      Siege is litteraly "player generated content". Players that generate boring, unenjoyable and unbeatable content complain that nobody wants to play with them. Now *that* is some backwards logic.

      Airtron wrote:

      In a mode where you put currency on the line, you should not ever have to gimp yourself just to get most of what its offering.
      You don't have to gimp yourself to get most of what its offering (and by that, I would assume you're talking about siege sacks, because when a defender earns 12000% of his investment, I consider that a pretty good offering). You have to go out and beat a siege yourself. The reward for successful defense is gold/platinum. Siege sacks to the defenders is merely a consolation prize for having lost eventually. If you want sacks, attack.
    • Sure, as soon as it stops being a gambletron cashgrab, Fred. Until then, there's no fucking way I'm attacking anything. At least I can post a siege for only 1000g (it should still be zero, and if it were, way more people would use it the way it's "intended," i.e. for fun). But HexEnt made this shitshow when they charged money for it, then tried to hide the shitshow by forcing us to engage if we wanted untradeable, PVE-affecting rewards they locked behind it.

      BAD. DESIGN.
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
    • Fred wrote:


      Airtron wrote:

      In a mode where you put currency on the line, you should not ever have to gimp yourself just to get most of what its offering.
      You don't have to gimp yourself to get most of what its offering (and by that, I would assume you're talking about siege sacks, because when a defender earns 12000% of his investment, I consider that a pretty good offering). You have to go out and beat a siege yourself. The reward for successful defense is gold/platinum. Siege sacks to the defenders is merely a consolation prize for having lost eventually. If you want sacks, attack.
      Fair for attacking, and yes I do mean siege sacks. You can get gold elsewhere and the fun aspect is arguably quite low. For defenders, you are stuck in with 2 choices: make your keep strong and have your keep ignored, or make an easier siege risking your gold and to get defeated before you can generate a decent amount of sacks. Good attacking decks will absolutely destroy fun decks as the ai is so stupid. With siege forcing you to risk gold to enter, it first and foremost becomes a gambling mode before a fun mode. Siege wouldn't be as hated as it is if you didnt have to gamble.
    • Ossuary wrote:

      Sure, as soon as it stops being a gambletron cashgrab, Fred. Until then, there's no fucking way I'm attacking anything. At least I can post a siege for only 1000g (it should still be zero, and if it were, way more people would use it the way it's "intended," i.e. for fun). But HexEnt made this shitshow when they charged money for it, then tried to hide the shitshow by forcing us to engage if we wanted untradeable, PVE-affecting rewards they locked behind it.

      BAD. DESIGN.

      Airtron wrote:

      With siege forcing you to risk gold to enter, it first and foremost becomes a gambling mode before a fun mode. Siege wouldn't be as hated as it is if you didnt have to gamble.
      Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Siege mode is well designed. I am only saying that claiming "siege is dead" simply because there are 10 sieges sitting at 15+ wins and 500 sacks is not a fair statement.
    • Fred wrote:

      Ossuary wrote:

      Sure, as soon as it stops being a gambletron cashgrab, Fred. Until then, there's no fucking way I'm attacking anything. At least I can post a siege for only 1000g (it should still be zero, and if it were, way more people would use it the way it's "intended," i.e. for fun). But HexEnt made this shitshow when they charged money for it, then tried to hide the shitshow by forcing us to engage if we wanted untradeable, PVE-affecting rewards they locked behind it.

      BAD. DESIGN.

      Airtron wrote:

      With siege forcing you to risk gold to enter, it first and foremost becomes a gambling mode before a fun mode. Siege wouldn't be as hated as it is if you didnt have to gamble.
      Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Siege mode is well designed. I am only saying that claiming "siege is dead" simply because there are 10 sieges sitting at 15+ wins and 500 sacks is not a fair statement.
      That is fair, perhaps i should rephrase the statement in the title: siege has died for those who have strong sieges. Those that create weaker sieges experience more activity, but for those who have strong sieges, it might as well be dead. This wasnt the case too long ago, they would have been swarmed or at least a few attackers per day. Now its a wasteland.
    • I really don't know what you're saying. My sieges are taken every 6 hours to 2 days by both PC and PS4 players. And now as I logged in my siege was beaten again by a PC player when it was at 5 sacks.

      Say what you want about Siege being a totally dead playground but atleast on my little corner I'm having a decent amount of activity... perhaps too much as I can't get to gather decent amount of sacks.

      Just enjoy my little sieges people! :thumbsup:

      EDIT: Didn't see the last two posts before posting this as I didn't refresh the page so my post is rather meaningless as the groundlevel activity was mentioned.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Talekith ().

    • i really like the idea of siege, it has super cool rewards and im a big fan of the smart packs. it just feels not worth to brew decks because of the ai. ai doesnt play cards, tageting doesnt work well, unique troops are a problem, i dislike how it attacks and blocks, it used to play removal pre combat now it first trades troops i want to stay on board for there effects and uses the removal after it. we cant see ai's hand in practice. its to much time affort to brew a deck the ai will fail to play. but again the concept is great, i hope for ai improvements and pls put them into patchnotes so we knew whats changing.
    • Well, it's about time that some players have all the need from the siege sacks so the decrease in activity is normal. That is what Hex Ent gets from their design of prize distribution. They might forced people to play the mode, but those who don't enjoy the mode will not play it anymore after they earn what they want. The prize can only hold up activities for so long. As for those people who enjoy the mode, well, they play the mode regardless of...well, anything, so their activity are probably consistent. What Hex Ent gets is just temporary boost of activity and that boost is starting to expire.

      This is exactly why doctor don't just give painkillers to a patient whatever suffering from some horrible diseases, they also give pills that will fix the diseases. Hex Ent is so in love with palliative care that they don't fix the goddarn problems. It's been like that forever. No player? We go on Steam and find more players. Oh okay, Steam is exhausted, we go on consoles and find more players. How about examining why we don't have as many players in the first place, the root of the problems?

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Goliathus ().