City siege queue suggestion

[toffikx]

Everyone must have experienced the city sieges where it's a complete stomp for one side or the other by now, this is fun for neither side. Not sure if this is actually possible but here's my suggestion anyway:

I like the idea. Scenarios have pug sc, solo ranked, scenarios that do not benefit premades like Thunder Valley. The 6 man premades can also quque 6v6. Don’t see why a similiar system would not be implemented into cities, atleast with the newly increased population (altough nobody knows how many will stay for the long-term).
You can put additionial rewards for warbands that decide to fight ”organized vs organized”, to promote that kind of gameplay.
In the end, the game should be enjoyable for the community as a whole. I don’t see how 1 hour pugstomps fit into that category.

[Kwatchi]

The last city I did was in an alliance WB with comms and a 2-2-2 composition. Not ideal one, but best we could manage with who was available. We got matched against Decimo’s group and were roflstomped.

We knew by our second push on cannons in stage 1 we had absolutely no shot and had a discussion if we should just afk the rest. Being a fun loving bunch we decided to keep at it to try and get at least one KB - that was our super bowl win.

Frankly that match would have been a miserable experience had we had a defeatist mindset. Playing against an organized group who benefited from the early gold bag drops while most of us are still struggling to finish invader thanks to 8 months of pop imbalance does not make a great scenario. Take away the 1 pity emblem we get on top of that and I doubt we’d even bother.

[toffikx]

We got matched against Decimo’s group and were roflstomped.

Decimo best warband leader since Hao. Change my mind.

[wargrimnir]

Endgame top tier rewards are not going to be pug friendly.

You are expected to create comprehensive and functional groups that can communicate effectively to win your instance. By the time you're seeking out RR70+ gear, you should be WAY past the days of casual play, and have learned that the best way to advance is through organization.

This is for the sake of your city rank, which for now doesn't mean a lot, but when it does you're not going to want to rely on pugs to defend your instances.

[Omegus]

The last city I did was in an alliance WB with comms and a 2-2-2 composition. Not ideal one, but best we could manage with who was available. We got matched against Decimo’s group and were roflstomped.

We knew by our second push on cannons in stage 1 we had absolutely no shot and had a discussion if we should just afk the rest. Being a fun loving bunch we decided to keep at it to try and get at least one KB - that was our super bowl win.

Frankly that match would have been a miserable experience had we had a defeatist mindset. Playing against an organized group who benefited from the early gold bag drops while most of us are still struggling to finish invader thanks to 8 months of pop imbalance does not make a great scenario. Take away the 1 pity emblem we get on top of that and I doubt we’d even bother.

Was this the 211 - 0 match from yesterday? If so, that was almost nothing to do with gear and everything to do with coordination and tactics (and specs and WB composition). That WB is very experienced in city sieges and we knew from the outside it would be tough on the attackers. If it wasn't that match then ignore this post .

[Elemint]

ITT: the tryhardiest of the tryhards advocating for balanced fights, and randoms telling them they should maybe try improving instead of complaining.
1 in 7 cities is a fun challenge, the rest i honestly feel like i'm kicking little kids' sandcastles. The dream is that everyone finds enjoyment in city sieges, even the most casual of the casual players with 2 tanks and 3 healers to get matched with the same. Currently there's simply no way to get the top WBs except for queing first and praying.

[Kwatchi]

The last city I did was in an alliance WB with comms and a 2-2-2 composition. Not ideal one, but best we could manage with who was available. We got matched against Decimo’s group and were roflstomped.

We knew by our second push on cannons in stage 1 we had absolutely no shot and had a discussion if we should just afk the rest. Being a fun loving bunch we decided to keep at it to try and get at least one KB - that was our super bowl win.

Frankly that match would have been a miserable experience had we had a defeatist mindset. Playing against an organized group who benefited from the early gold bag drops while most of us are still struggling to finish invader thanks to 8 months of pop imbalance does not make a great scenario. Take away the 1 pity emblem we get on top of that and I doubt we’d even bother.

Was this the 211 - 0 match from yesterday? If so, that was almost nothing to do with gear and everything to do with coordination and tactics (and specs and WB composition). That WB is very experienced in city sieges and we knew from the outside it would be tough on the attackers. If it wasn't that match then ignore this post .

No idea if we are talking about the same one.

Frankly being skunked is not the issue for me. It happens. There is always a bigger fish in the pond. My only concern is if you take away the pity medals as some have suggested, the amount of city participants will dry up.

City instances are the one WB level part of the game that is server stable. The last thing anyone should want is the effin lag-disaster forts becoming the de facto end game again for most of the game population. (ie we had two server resets of Stonewatch this past Saturday. It was painfully laughable and hardly a selling point to new players)

[M0rw47h]

Today Altdorf 1 was Pug vs Pug, and one rolled over other completly.
Because you guys know, pugs made of good players with discord can be as effective as some guild premades.

[geezereur]

Agree with the OP city sieges suck as a pug player or if you play the wrong char.

[Rapzel]

Put a surrender option for each stage, problem solved.

if you dont want to put effort to build or join a proper wb you shouldnt be rewarded in any way.

And also there is a lot of ways to arrange 24vs24 if you are looking for good fights.

This is stupid, was just in a IC (11 I think, 2020-03-15) we lost the first 3 fights with my solo queue wb (2 tanks, 3 healers, rest dps).
Order (full 8/8/8 wb) capped all the BOs in stage 1.

So we gathered up at the gate, saw that they thought it would be the easiest fight of their life and could make it with ease to their back lines with our melee.
Defended for about 27 mins at that gate, won stage 1.

2nd stage we where heavy on dps so we burnt down the lords MUCH faster than they could, they started to spread thin and lose patience as we went for back lines.
Kept wiping them over and over again in stage 2 and got 5 BOs.


3rd stage we had +10% dmg buff which allowed us to run them over.

This would never have happened if it wasn't for the fact that we couldn't just .surrender out of a City defense stage.

I play with Jabba's alliance warband, we try to put up a 24 man each time, sometimes people don't make it in time or have other obligations
(even though we're all sweaty neck beards with no jobs that play a dead game for 14 hrs a day).
Not allowing "casuals" entrance to cities because of the fact that they don't put any "effort" in sounds awful.
Are WE, SW, WH and so on casuals? No one wants them in their 8/8/8 premade wbs.
This would lock around 70% of the player base outside of the end game content.

Separating the queues would be fine for me and giving a reward of one extra won Crest for each won stage as a pre-made 24 mans would encourage people to join up on wbs.
And allow people who prefer solo or small groups to still participate in the end game content.