- Joined
- Apr 23, 2022
- Messages
- 5
3rd parties add an element of unpredictability to a siege that I fear will be so great it will discourage the event.
To combat this we need limits on 3rd party zone capture ability and the ability for leaders to kick them out of the affiliation.
Because capturing a zone relies 100% on having more players inside than the enemy, a large disparity between populations heavily favors a win to the overpopulated side, unless they are woefully unprepared. My theory is that more players on average will join the attackers, since "attacking" is generally more desirable than "defending". I have witnessed this on a siege I did with random players. 100% of the randoms that came (2) joined attacker side. Yes it is a low sample size but I would encourage more testing of this hypothesis.
To solve this issue, perhaps we could not allow 3rd party players to count towards zone capture for the side they choose. This way they can still help, but won't be so pivotal to the victory condition.
It could also be the case that 3rd party affiliates are bad actors or enemy alt accounts, and use the trust/intel gained from affiliation to team kill and grief. For this reason each side's owner needs to be able to accept, reject or kick 3rd parties (and anyone else, eg. company spies) from their side. The kicked player would still be in the siege, but wouldn't have the trust/intel from others from the affilation.
Also on this note, we need to know who killed us.
To combat this we need limits on 3rd party zone capture ability and the ability for leaders to kick them out of the affiliation.
Because capturing a zone relies 100% on having more players inside than the enemy, a large disparity between populations heavily favors a win to the overpopulated side, unless they are woefully unprepared. My theory is that more players on average will join the attackers, since "attacking" is generally more desirable than "defending". I have witnessed this on a siege I did with random players. 100% of the randoms that came (2) joined attacker side. Yes it is a low sample size but I would encourage more testing of this hypothesis.
To solve this issue, perhaps we could not allow 3rd party players to count towards zone capture for the side they choose. This way they can still help, but won't be so pivotal to the victory condition.
It could also be the case that 3rd party affiliates are bad actors or enemy alt accounts, and use the trust/intel gained from affiliation to team kill and grief. For this reason each side's owner needs to be able to accept, reject or kick 3rd parties (and anyone else, eg. company spies) from their side. The kicked player would still be in the siege, but wouldn't have the trust/intel from others from the affilation.
Also on this note, we need to know who killed us.
Last edited:
