Rules & Pangaea.

[Biao]

Players want a siege system, GMs create it, players complain it creates too much pvp.

so true.

But the facts are, with siege system players base is growing.

[Jyrgen]

Players want a siege system, GMs create it, players complain it creates too much pvp. Basically the only pvp you should feel compelled to participate in is temple defense, the rest is volountary. Temple attacks could be executed without the siege system.

The thing is actually the opposite, as you don't really lose anything (but pride and emmys and whatnot) from not defending your temple, but if someone sieges your town, you're somewhat forced to PvP unless you want to "lose" your cities. And as there was nothing really much to gain from attacking temple either, people mostly did it to have some fun pvp. Not to pvp 5 hours straight

[Mike]

Players want a siege system, GMs create it, players complain it creates too much pvp. Basically the only pvp you should feel compelled to participate in is temple defense, the rest is volountary. Temple attacks could be executed without the siege system.

The thing is actually the opposite, as you don't really lose anything (but pride and emmys and whatnot) from not defending your temple, but if someone sieges your town, you're somewhat forced to PvP unless you want to "lose" your cities. And as there was nothing really much to gain from attacking temple either, people mostly did it to have some fun pvp. Not to pvp 5 hours straight :P

Town takeovers are largely a matter of prestige, while temple defense should largely be a matter of piety. If a religion consequently refuses to defend its holy ground it's weak.

[Johnny Walac]

Players want a siege system, GMs create it, players complain it creates too much pvp. Basically the only pvp you should feel compelled to participate in is temple defense, the rest is volountary. Temple attacks could be executed without the siege system.

The thing is actually the opposite, as you don't really lose anything (but pride and emmys and whatnot) from not defending your temple, but if someone sieges your town, you're somewhat forced to PvP unless you want to "lose" your cities. And as there was nothing really much to gain from attacking temple either, people mostly did it to have some fun pvp. Not to pvp 5 hours straight

In my opinion, not defending the temple when you are able should result in a piety drop. I seen to many members log off during a temple attack. In all religions.

[Aileth]

Players want a siege system, GMs create it, players complain it creates too much pvp.

so true.

But the facts are, with siege system players base is growing.

PVP as it is now is a lot better than robber guilds and actually takes off part of the griefing from IG/OOG.

[Jyrgen]

Town takeovers are largely a matter of prestige, while temple defense should largely be a matter of piety. If a religion consequently refuses to defend its holy ground it's weak.

Weak or not weak, it doesn't hold any real concequence except a hit towards someone's ego.

[Jyrgen]

Players want a siege system, GMs create it, players complain it creates too much pvp. Basically the only pvp you should feel compelled to participate in is temple defense, the rest is volountary. Temple attacks could be executed without the siege system.

The thing is actually the opposite, as you don't really lose anything (but pride and emmys and whatnot) from not defending your temple, but if someone sieges your town, you're somewhat forced to PvP unless you want to "lose" your cities. And as there was nothing really much to gain from attacking temple either, people mostly did it to have some fun pvp. Not to pvp 5 hours straight

In my opinion, not defending the temple when you are able should result in a piety drop. I seen to many members log off during a temple attack. In all religions.

I agree, but the main problem is that you can actually never prove if someone logged off cause they didn't want to die, or just cause of RL reasons. I guess that's the reason why there hasn't been this pietydropping rule yet.

EDIT: Actually ya can prove it only if the person logs another char right after that.

And then there's the question what does "being able to" mean? I.e, if you're playing another char, should ya be forced to log your religious char? Or if someone's macroing on their religious char and can't play very well due to RL reasons?

[Johnny Walac]

The piety drop would be all up to the Headpriest. They know whats up.
I am not looking to piety drop Law when they log out (Just an example). I am looking to increase the discipline amongst our own troops with punishment if you log off during a temple attack.

[Jyrgen]

Can't headpriests already request a pietydrop to already for those reasons anyway? But I guess it could generate some whines and discontent.

[Monad]

Can't headpriests already request a pietydrop to already for those reasons anyway?

They can.
We are not forcing anyone to play or not to play in any situation.