Runes of Magic US / AU

Let me start with what this post is NOT. It is NOT a post to simply complain things are broken and that “somebody” should fix them. If that is your “thing” - to read a post and simply respond that you don’t like it without any further explanation or offer of a comparative solution then this conversation is not directed at you and I suggest you stop reading here.

This is a post to suggest a game refocus and change that COULD positively affect siege warfare. I am not saying this is the correct or even most correct answer to some of the current issues but it is ONE approach that I put forward for discussion. Here it is…

Background and justification

Throughout history smaller armies have enlisted the aid of mercenaries in their disputes with larger and often better armed opponents. With the current state of the game, we often see guilds that are low in numbers or are at full strength one day and have only a few players on the next.

This has created havoc in a point system that has never been truly effective. There are simply too many random factors involved with regard to the number of players who show up, differences in gear and/or skill (not the same thing) and the lack of available guilds within range of each other to make siege a truly competitive event.

To help guilds, I propose we take what some players are already doing and make it a structured option that can be regulated and used towards improving the game experience.

How it would work

The first step would be to give individual players the ability to sign themselves up to be mercenaries. This would be an action independent of the guild registration. Once a player signs up to be a mercenary they commit themselves to fight for another guild. The mercenary would be assigned individual points based on their participation and whether the guild they assisted won or lost the match.

Establishing the relationship and creating a gold sink

When a player signs up to be a mercenary, they list that they are available and set a price for their services. Prices will vary based on gear and experience with OP players costing more to hire than lesser geared and experienced ones. Arguably these numbers will be extremely subjective and unbalanced with players both over and undervaluing their contributions but, with time, these prices will find equilibrium and establish price points that can be realistically supported.

Next, when a guild registers for siege, they have the option to pre-pay whatever amount they feel is fair to hire mercenaries to fight for them. The number and level of mercenaries will be determined based on what amount the guild has allocated to spend. Prior to siege (say ½ hour or 15 mins prior – good deliberation point), the guild will have the opportunity to look at a list of available mercenaries and purchase the services of those they wish to hire. These mercenaries will then be added to that guild for the duration of siege only.

Controls

There would of course need to be some control to protect both the guilds and the players electing to be mercenaries. Once the siege starts, mercenaries that do not participate can be booted within the first 5 mins to protect guilds from players who don’t show or who log in and stand around. Likewise, a mercenary cannot be booted within the last 5 mins of siege to protect the mercenary from a guild utilizing their services then booting them at the end to avoid paying out.

Conclusion

I have avoiding going into lengthy discussion of this with the sincere hope that we can engage in a meaningful discussion/debate. What that means is if you feel compelled to disagree then by all means do so, but please state WHY you disagree and what YOUR suggestion would be to deal with the same issue(s ).

Obviously it would have to be voluntary with guilds deciding for themselves whether they wish to participate or not. What norms and beliefs your guild shares is entirely up to your group. Others may not see it in the same light. I would think though that the inclusion of a gold sink would make it not economically viable in the longer term for for guilds to rely solely on mercenaries to do their fighting for them.

Demand for this service is really an unknown. We do know that some players currently "merc" with other guilds and that the process requires them to leave their current guild, wait on join timers, etc. Not a spur of the moment decision. Who then is to say how the player base would respond if this were an option that was much less of a hassle and afforded more opportunity. Likewise, I would think that not everyone wishing to be a merc would be an OP geared player with tons of experience. Quite the contrary. If a player wants to siege and their own guild either didn't get a match or for any other number of reasons decided not to siege as a guild it would still allow the individual player to at least get into a match if they were so inclined.

Now to the debate portion: You made an assumption in your reply about the issue but unfortunately missed the mark by focusing on only a single element of a much larger, more systemic issue. The issue is the decline in the overall gaming experience which includes finding ways to reinvigorate the communities through increased player involvement. In hindsight I could have been more clear on that so I apologize if that caused anyone who read this to feel I was singularly focused on only one specific aspect.

Second, your absolutist contention that the ONLY REAL way to make siege more competitive is to mandate minimums and not allow alts to participate in the events is totally unsubstantiated. Even if we gloss over the first point as having some potential merit, your second point is not only highly impractical but would result in discriminatory conduct and practices. How would you even implement something like that to ensure ONLY alts were banned from siege?

Finally, you concluded by saying fix the lack of population and everything will fall into place. Another absolute. While I agree that the lack of population doesn't help any, the point system has never been an efficient system for matches, sieges are still very often one sided and players who's guild does not register to siege do not have any other recourse if that is what they wish to do that night in game. Would increasing the population help? I think most of us can agree that it would definitely help. Will increasing the population cause everything to fall into place? Most likely not. Actually it could just as easily take the existing problems and magnify them by the increase in the players.

I think we're on track here for a meaningful discussing folks. Great feedback so far. A couple responses:

@Auros: My intent was to address each of the issues you raised directly. I'm sorry if that felt like I was scrutinizing your words line by line.

@Zeringa: I do like your approach though in truth it does seem like it would likely lead to the purposeful creation of more "elitist" pug groups. This could result in guilds facing groups very similar to the "point dropping" guilds now. As such, I don't think there would be much support for that or for the creation of any venue for OP characters to "roflstomp" under-geared/under-represented guilds. Perhaps there are some controls that could be implemented to help avoid that?

@radeon: I looked briefly at that angle as well and absolutely see the merit in it. My only concern would be how it was implemented or more to the point, if it could even be implemented in a way that would create more evenly matched contests and not just be a way to switch the balance of power. How do you envision this working? Say for example, two 2k guilds could combine to go up against a 4k guild using the existing point system? Would you keep the point system intact with this or abandon it in favor of a different system altogether?

Thanks for keeping this constructive folks