First time defending in a siege thoughts:
the battlefield is quite restrictive. After the attackers determine which one of the two sides to attack they, and the defenders, are effectively stuck at that front. The attackers cant set up catapults on two sides to force the defense to split its attention and the defenders cant leave out of one door, ride all the way around the town and attack the defenders from a different angle.
I am sure that the restricted battle area is in consideration of varied and odd terrains where it might be inappropriate for the attackers to set up on (river, cliffs, etc...) but being unable to circle around the town at all is extremely limiting and frustrating as cool things that the attackers or defenders -could- do are eliminated and you are left with two forces left to just smash into each other head on. was a property of the local terrain, not sieges.
The flags need work. Either there is the problem where players can walk inside the flags and become hard or impossible to target, or the height of the target box of the flags is such that any ranged attacks at players on the ground must be blind fired or you will find that you are firing up at the flag and not at the opponent. The hit box does not need to be so big and is a hindrance.
If we are able to fight in the trees and not constantly be firing at the canopy then we should be able to fight in the flags and not be firing up into the air.
The lack of object collision is understandable for many things... but without it in a battle with 20+ people, you just get overlapping mosh pit of insanity. With unit collision we would be forced to spread out, march in file, do rotations, and able to set up shield walls. Right now the only option we have is the bone wall. unit collision would make the game more dangerous for the players in many ways which I see as a good thing because it would reward them for thinking... and would stop the stacking of 8 wolves on top of each other XD.
The stone walls look lovely, they really do... but without the ability to attack down from them, or up at them, they are not performing up to their aesthetic.
There is also the issue of equipment...
Originally sieges were like all the other pvp, full loot and the reward for a successful defense was the gear pillaged. This is also what the 5?6? tabs in the war chest were for- extra sets of replacement gear.
This was also the time of cheep gear and low durability.
Now with expensive gear, high durability, and no equipped item drop... death is practically meaningless and there is no booty except for if the attackers are successful.
This means that the battles are fought less like battles and more like lemmings there is no attrition, cost, or reward involved. A careful smaller force can slowly bleed a larger overconfident force, organization does not matter, and neither does that big war chest.
We are missing out on meaningful rewarding content due to the current economic and pvp situation of low drop rates, high durability, and no equipment dropped.
One of the attackers had 3k gold on them in the fight, and another had a recipe. When this was looted it was the talk of the group. a truly memorable battle trophy !
Were we set back to the days of cheep equipment and modest drop rates then we would have more sinks, less pain at loss, and more moments of triumph.
I think it would be most appropriate if all participants in a siege had to flag neutral and lost at minimum 2 pieces of equipment per death. I died 3? times, I could afford to replace 6 pieces of equipment -even if with cheaper un-enchanted versions- and it would be a meaningful consequence of the battle and reward to the people who took me down.
Right now I am simply down 13 durability ! (i started with fresh items)
This hardly feels like the result from a grueling half hour battle with damage flying everywhere and me totally exhausted (0 energy) for the last 8 min.
Without meaningful consequences the whole event and experience is cheapened.
