Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Laithes" data-source="post: 17856" data-attributes="member: 1848">Cool story bro, that's line three.If you want me to expand upon my argument then fine.I personally see a problem with the server due to the fact that there are no large, ongoing wars on this server. Now you could argue that this isn't a problem, but seeing as it's a PvP server and most people come here to well PvP, I feel that it would interest more players as it does me, if there were more open conflict. Now I see that the problem arises from factions and it inhibits PvP, and doesn't really allow for base conquest unless the other side screws up and leaves a flaw in their defenses. As I see it, siege will allow the ability to openly confront your personal or clan enemies and deal them blows that really count. This is good because it encourages people to get revenge. And if people are focused on getting revenge, well we have some nice conflict going on.Now those of us pushing for this could be out of touch with the community entirely, but to my knowledge this is a clan-based PvP server, and it's what most of us came here for. And this idea, to my knowledge and beliefs, promotes clan-based PvP, more so than our current system.Now of course I didn't entirely like the siege system proposed, so here's my amendments. If you have 5+ members in your faction online, you must participate in siege. If you opt out due to lack of members, you cannot attack other factions at this time. If you have less than 5 members online, the choice is up to you on whether or not to participate in siege.While you can trap your entrance, it can't be something impossible to get past, i.e. lava pit that appears when you walk through the door, so you can't get to the main base.</blockquote>

Verification

Search

Forums

What's new

TeamSpeak

Reply to thread

Connect with us