Fix neutral fiefs not paying, Siege on Karindi example of downward spiral

[Balton]

Less than 10 defenders showed up, which resulted in flags being capped almost instantaneously.

This is a sign that neutral fiefs failing to pay should be a top priority hotfix. It's only going down-hill from this point, pretty soon less than 5 people will show.

These endeavors are turning Strategus into a mockery.

[PhantomZero]

Less than 10 players showed up due to superior goon tactics, but neutral fiefs should pay money.

[Balton]

Less than 10 players showed up due to superior goon tactics, but neutral fiefs should pay money.

'Tis true actually. As things stand now, sieging during the off-hours results in practically no defenders showing.

But this would not be a problem if EU players showed to defend NA fiefs, and NA players showed to defend EU fiefs, which would most certainly occur as a result of mercenaries being paid that which they are owed.

[Dehitay]

Or we could just let Fallen take all the villages. Tulbuk was taken during the most awkward hour and still people showed up in mass for the AI

[Balton]

Or we could just let Fallen take all the villages. Tulbuk was taken during the most awkward hour and still people showed up in mass for the AI

Like I said, it's a downward spiral. The tulbuk battle occured 8 days ago, & the attackers outnumbered the Tulbuk defenders by more than 2:1, less than 20 showing up to defend Tulbuk. But on the very first strat 3.0 siege, IIRC 60 or so defenders showed up. With no pay, people are losing interest.

[Teeth]

Like I said, it's a downward spiral. The tulbuk battle occured 8 days ago, & the attackers outnumbered the Tulbuk defenders by more than 2:1, less than 20 showing up to defend Tulbuk. But on the very first strat 3.0 siege, IIRC 60 or so defenders showed up. With no pay, people are losing interest.

Do you have a stump?

Edit: My spatial visualization abilities just kicked in. To me it looked liked you had your arm stretched with a a very fat hand and a few weird ass fingers sticking out. Still, what the hell is wrong with the tip of your elbow?

[Slamz]

How many people joined LLJK's side for this attack and also got no money and no benefit?  So why'd they join if it's all about money?


I don't think it's necessarily money that's the problem so much as people just not wanting to make enemies.  I joined one of the EU battles against a village and the attackers seemed pretty pissed that anyone went against them.  I mean like actual chat rage as if they almost couldn't contend with it, despite outnumbering us 3 to 1 in both players and tickets.

As far as I'm concerned, AI village defense is just "roleplaying villagers" and someone has to do it and it's fun and if someone wants to rage about it, well that just makes it all the more fun.  I don't expect to see my allies defending a town against me but I wouldn't sign a rage declaration against the defenders, either.

Ideally, we should be anonymous when defending a neutral village ("Village_Peasant_09") but I'm sure that would be a problem due to douchebaggery (this is why we can't have nice things).

[CrazyCracka420]

People are losing interest in fighting for NPC village defenses because they aren't getting paid money?  Are you kidding me?

I'm assuming they must have changed it so that you have to actually be near the village you're defending to get paid?  Probably similar to if you sign up for a player's battle you need to be near them to actually get paid...just an assumption, and you know what they say about assumptions.

I like your suggestion slamz, that would be ideal.

[oprah_winfrey]

As far as I'm concerned, AI village defense is just "roleplaying villagers" and someone has to do it and it's fun and if someone wants to rage about it, well that just makes it all the more fun.  I don't expect to see my allies defending a town against me but I wouldn't sign a rage declaration against the defenders, either.

Well some people will "sign a rage declaration" against the defenders, so they aren't taking the risk and signing up for defense, especially when they aren't going to receive anything.

[CrazyCracka420]

Well some people will "sign a rage declaration" against the defenders, so they aren't taking the risk and signing up for defense, especially when they aren't going to receive anything.

I think that's true if a faction signs up and is a majority of the defense.  Unless relations are already tense, I don't think it's an issue.  I've signed up for battles on attackers and some of my faction has signed up for NPC defenses.  And I've seen this many times with other factions too.

If a few people from a faction show up to defend a village I highly doubt the attackers will see it as an act of aggression...most of the time people are just wanting to fight in strat battles.  And early in the game the village defense has better equipment than the attackers lots of times.

I don't think people getting paid has any effect on people showing up for village defenses.  I think the other, more likely, reasons are that they are allied/friendly with the attackers, they don't want to piss off the attackers (if relations are rocky), the battle is at a shitty time, or people are busy playing other things (SKYRIM, HELLO!)

[Camaris]

If  it would be easier to get xp on strategus then on battle or siege those village-defense would be full every time.