March Size vs Seat of Power Improvements (5/21/19)

Comments

10 comments

  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    Yes good idea. let's increase the march to 10,000,000 for each for rally, and make 1,000 seats for the defenders in sop. why not?

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    How about you bring us some Kingdom merges instead of making it impossible for people to play? Asking for a few thousand friends.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    Is this a joke? How is anyone supposed to defend a seat of power now? You'd better increase the maximum reinforcement capacity to make it balanced.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    oh, why do we need to defend ourselves. we can simply buy 5-6 packages for treating troops. it's fun .

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    It's pretty clear that where you stand on this comes down to whether you're currently holding those seats or not. It appears we continue to end up with enabling and requiring large masses of players. This, at least, allows smaller numbers to do damage to people holding Seats if not necessarily hold some themselves. Since I'm on the side of players who happen to not being holding Seats I approve.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    Wait till you're trying to hold a seat yourself and you get buttplowed by a 19 million power rally set. We'll see how much you approve then.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    In case I wasn't clear on that point I'm not trying to hold onto any Seats. What I have seen is that without at least 3-4 teams an actively defended Seat can be held, even against the new rally sizes. That's not to say it won't hurt, there will be a lot of healing involved since the defenders will be "losing" almost every combat. What I think you'll see is that Seats that are not considered "worth it" will not be defended, you'll see a lot more use of abdication and more sniping happening at the end of the unlocked period. As the saying goes "where you stand depends on where you sit." Personally I'm in favor of the changes since it makes it possible for smaller groups to engage in meaningful PvP and not just requiring 30+ people online to do anything. YMMV.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    We captured KL with two allegiances against mostly T10 defenders before this update. It's completely unnecessary if balance is the excuse. Now we can do it with one allegiance, and without any major losses, effort, or organization. Is that what these changes are meant to reward? Laziness?

    I saw a screenshot of a 23 million power rally this weekend. What's a defender supposed to do against that kind of power? This is a game-breaking change. Why even have defenders and defense mechanics, if you're going to overpower attackers to the point of insuperability?

    Is the developer's vision really to have glitch-abuse via allegiance shield as the only valid tactic? Last weekend, all locking SOPs were left empty, with abdication as the only means of defense. That's not the game I signed up to play, and I refuse to spend more money until this is fixed. I also have a hard time understanding how this is going to make WB any money, as nobody bothers to defend SOPs anymore, resulting in zero losses, resulting in zero purchased packs.

    I guess that's "meaningful PvP" now lol

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    That's why they are increasing the bonuses for Paramounts, to make it more meaningful to hold them. I suspect people will continue to fight over them, as well as King's Landing, for prestige, if nothing else. I think we'll just have to disagree, then. What I see on my server is that it takes 5 groups to take any significant Seat of Power. This reinforces the idea that the only way to make progress in the game is to be part of a big allegiance or alliance, otherwise you're relegated to the sidelines. That pressure keeps those big groups together even when personalities might ordinarily break them apart. This leads to, at best, a duopoly which generally collapses into a single group controlling everything meaningful. This at least injects some dynamism into the game, makes it possible for smaller groups to do something, even if it turns into a mad scramble at the end. I'm with you in the shield business, I find that annoying.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    I agree fully

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.