1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

A 'letter' sent to the Devs on behalf of the Siege Community

Discussion in 'UO Siege Perilous' started by Bruin, Apr 8, 2010.

  1. Bruin

    Bruin Guest

    I just sent an email/PM to a few of the Devs/EA people including Cal, Zig, Mesanna, and Cecil summarizing all the polls put up over the last few weeks and asking for their help. A copy of it is below. I included any poll response that had a vote of 60% or higher in favor for both brevity and I think a strong majority should be needed to bring about change.

    Thanks to Kat for the initial draft and to those who put up the polls and the respondents.

    Hopefully we can get some positive changes for Siege.


    ********************


    Dev Team - Siege Needs Your Help!

    The situation on Siege Perilous has reached critical mass and is desperate need of attention. The original vision and concept of Siege Perilous was awesome, but after years of publishes, expansions and other additions aimed primarily for non-Siege shards, the concept of Siege has been muddied. Sadly, certain Siege restrictions are no longer viable in the current state today’s game. While we have appreciated the few changes that have come our way over the past couple years, they haven't been enough. It is time to make some serious changes in order for our shard to flourish.

    We feel that changes to better Siege are in the interests of the current Siege players and future Siege players, and thus in the best interests of EA. Many old returning players, or even players who venture from non-Siege shards to give Siege a try are attempting to re-create their early experiences in UO. The era of risk, where one could be murdered while hunting or stolen from at a bank is alluring to many veteran players. Often they get tired of their home shards and give Siege a try as a last shot to invigorate their interests in the game, only to be disappointed at the current state of Siege. We believe that bringing about changes that stay within the spirit of what Siege was intended, while making game play on Siege more rewarding will help retain paying customers for EA that would otherwise be lost.

    Our community has come together in recent months in an effort to determine what changes might be necessary to bring Siege back from the brink, to become an active, healthy, thriving community once again. The response from non-Siege players who might otherwise like to try Siege seemed to boil it down to three key issues. Slow skill gain, being limited to one character and the inability to place a house on Siege without losing everything on their home shard.

    We have also been on a fact-finding mission within the Siege community, to determine what changes, if any, would be acceptable to the player base as a whole. While we would like to remain as close as possible to the spirit of Siege and its current rules and standards, we have been voting on possible changes which you will find below. In deciding what changes we feel are beneficial, we have kept in mind the difficulty and the time consuming nature of coding, thus we have strived to provide suggestions we felt that would result in minimal coding requirements such by requesting changes or events that have previously occurred.

    Listed below you will find the Stratics poll threads containing votes on the following issues, listed in order of support, with a brief explanation as to the reasons for the requested changes:

    With nearly unanimous support the Siege community feels that these three changes would be beneficial:

    - Reintroduce T2A Blackrock Skill Gain Areas: Slow Skill gain was one of the top 3 issues Non-Siege and New-Siege players repeatedly mention. We would like to see this as a permanent addition, as we feel the risk vs reward nature of this gain system is perfect for SP. Additional tweaks to RoT timers and daily caps would be highly welcomed as well.

    - Add Siege to the list of shards upon log-in: Instead of hiding Siege from new players and/or returning players with new accounts, we feel adding our shard to the list is a good step forward for us. Even many new players to UO who have come from other MMORPGs prefer non-consensual pvp servers, so we do not believe that Siege should be hidden from them.

    - Increased bank storage for Siege characters: On non-Siege shards, players are allowed up to 7 characters with 125 bank storage each, for a total of 875 storage. The one-character Siege restriction limits Siege players to 125 total bank storage. While 125 bank storage was often enough when the game was first released, the significant changes in item properties for example necessitate much greater storage needs. People who primarily play other shards and thus have a home elsewhere, find it extremely difficult to exist with the Siege bank storage limitations, and are thus less likely to give Siege a try.

    - Increased artifact drops and re-introduction of cursed artifacts - 75%
    Siege players are in support of increasing the availability of artifacts on Siege through increased drop rates (a higher chance to receive an artifact from doom or Ilshenar Paragons) and the re-introduction of cursed artifacts. The advent of faction artifacts has allowed only faction characters easy access to very powerful gear. This has put faction characters at a huge advantage to non-faction characters who, without any real access to new artifacts or insurance to utilize the difficult to acquire doom artifacts, simply can not compete against faction characters. By increasing the drop rates of artifacts and re-introducing cursed artifacts, it would bring about a more level playing field between faction and non-faction players.

    - Allow grandfathered housing on Siege – Slightly over 70%
    Once again the issue comes back to with the increased dependence on the variety of items that now exist in game, it becomes very difficult for a player on another shard to exist on Siege with the limitations of 125 bank item storage. By allowing people to have a home on their home shard and a grandfathered home on Siege, more people would be willing to try out Siege. It is important to note that when we speak of ‘grandfathered’ homes, we speak specifically of the old grandfathered homes that required a manual refresh periodically to ensure the person was actually playing on Siege, so as to not fill the land with empty homes.

    - Allow a second character slot on Siege – 70%
    When Siege was first introduced 10 years ago, there were fewer skills and character templates that existed. With the introduction of these new skills, as well as the introduction of much more difficult monsters, characters need to develop themselves to specialize. A character template that is good in player vs player combat, is typically ineffective in hunting monsters, and vice-versa. By allowing a second character slot, this would give the players freedom to create their monster hunter to acquire items and wealth with, and their player versus player combat character (or other template) to do with as they please.

    - Increased artifact drops, re-introduction of cursed artifacts, and removal of faction items – About 63%
    This is a simple slight variation from the ‘Increased artifact drop and re-introduction of cursed artifact’ poll. We recognize with skills like Bushido with lightening strike and an automatic 45 HCI, artifacts are needed. By doing away with faction artifacts, you completely level the playing field between factions and non-faction players.

    - Additional changes to RoT Timers – About 60%
    With the almost ability to create a fully trained character on non-Siege shards in about a week, not including power scrolls, the time requirements of just over 3 months of game-time that RoT requires makes others much more hesitant to play Siege. Many people who come to Siege are those that have trained countless characters, and the 3 month grind is no longer enjoyable to them, especially when they can achieve the same in less than a few weeks time on other shards.

    * * * * *
    Time and time again, we hear from new Siege players that Siege is the last stop for them... those who no longer wish to play other shards, those who are looking for something different within the realm of UO and those who have grown bored with playing other shards and other games. Siege Perilous is also often the first stop for those who return after not playing for many years, to relive how it once was (or as close to is as exists). Dev Team - If you're willing to help, the majority of us are willing to accept some change. We need the ability to retain these players in today’s game. This would be a win/win situation for both EA and the Siege community. Rest assured that the time and effort you put into helping Siege is worth it.

    Thank you for your consideration,

    The Siege Community
     
  2. Black magick

    Black magick Guest

    I like how the poll for faction arties that had LESS people vote is the one used because it makes it out to look like everyone wants faction arties off. Nice bull**** move there.
     
  3. Dirkdiggler

    Dirkdiggler Guest

    Bruin, your arguement creation skills are great. Especially the opening appealing to EA's best interests, very persuasive. I don't know who's paying you but you sure need a raise. Thanks for putting all of this together; and of course everybody else who tries to make siege better.
     
  4. Kat

    Kat Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran TnT/TnA

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,272
    Likes Received:
    425
    /Signed
     
  5. archite666

    archite666 Guest

    *shrugs*

    Anything is better than this.

    /signed
     
  6. Tjalle

    Tjalle Grand Inquisitor
    Professional Stratics Veteran Campaign Supporter Gilfane

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,851
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    Strong and well-written letter, Bruin!

    Even though there were some things (poll-wise) that I didn´t agree with I will welcome any changes that might come and make the best of it.

    The polls were made. People had time to vote, argue and counter-argue. Now the letter is sent. Good luck to us all...

    :grouphug:
     
  7. Kage

    Kage Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    3,471
    Likes Received:
    81
    Agreed...
     
  8. Scuzzlebutt

    Scuzzlebutt Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    4
    Way to push your own agenda. Do you think a poll with 30 total responses is really indicative of any kind of majority?
     
  9. Bruin

    Bruin Guest

    Explain.

    Perhaps you missed this:

     
  10. Chardonnay

    Chardonnay Visitor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,876
    Likes Received:
    1
    Honestly? Yes...
     
  11. Scuzzlebutt

    Scuzzlebutt Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    4
    Considering other polls listed have 80+ responses?
     
  12. Chardonnay

    Chardonnay Visitor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,876
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes?
     
  13. John Connelly

    John Connelly Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    6
    With two possible responses, agree or disagree, and 36 votes of which 23 were agree, and 13 disagree (when I looked at the poll), there is a greater than 90% chance that the results of the poll were significant and not caused by chance.

    But then again, we have all seen how the RNG in UO makes a mockery of everything related to statistics.
     
  14. Chardonnay

    Chardonnay Visitor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,876
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good job Bruin...
     
  15. Wulf2k

    Wulf2k Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Crusader of Chaos

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    7,565
    Likes Received:
    314
    Ah, but if we assume the universe is deterministic, then there's a 100% chance that it wasn't caused by chance. So with a 50% chance of it being a 100% chance averaged with the 50% chance of it being over a 90% chance we're up to over 95%. Rounding up then, we can say it's approximately a 100% chance.

    Therefore, it's obviously correct, and anybody arguing with the results has roughly a 0% chance of being right.

    I love numbers.
     
  16. Draxous

    Draxous Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,126
    Likes Received:
    29
    This. Great letter, but the remove faction crap should have been left out.

    ...
     
  17. Speedy Orkit

    Speedy Orkit Grand Inquisitor
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    9
    From what I see, Bruin used BOTH polls, and I see no wrong doing there.

    /signed.
     
  18. Chardonnay

    Chardonnay Visitor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,876
    Likes Received:
    1
    QFT...

    /signed
     
  19. Revvo

    Revvo Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    59
    ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

    Another attempt to do something positive for Siege, another waste of time :)

    Polls and statistics in developed countries are usually built around a proportion of a whole not a majority but then 30 replies might actually be the majority still playing Siege.

    The only way Siege will be saved is when the player base reaches one and even then it could be one of the schizo's and still nothing would be agreed on :)
     
  20. Good letter Bruin. The only thing I would have left out is the removal of the faction stuff, because I think the longer something's been in use by someone, it becomes a staple of how they play and the more unfair it is to ask for it to be taken away from them.
     
  21. Timothy_SP

    Timothy_SP Guest

    Nice letter. Let's just hope they finally removed the "Siege" to "Trash" Filter on their email clients!
     
  22. Scuzzlebutt

    Scuzzlebutt Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    4
    If only 36 replied, but 80 or more had replied to other polls then one of two things are likely. One, either the remaining people did not see this poll. Two, the remaining people were indifferent about the poll, meaning they saw no reason to change the current system. I would give everything I owned to get a steady supply of player interaction. For me my interaction is heavily pvp oriented. The cold hard truth is, those that do not pvp now, will not all of the sudden start because these items are removed.
     
  23. Draxous

    Draxous Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,126
    Likes Received:
    29
    You're telling me significance on a result with no standard deviation mentioned? Show me the confidence levels you used to determine that.

    Yeah... no.

    Anything under 75% shouldn't have even been mentioned. Do the math... or should I say, redo the math.
     
  24. Tiberius

    Tiberius Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,269
    Likes Received:
    47
    Nice letter Bruin, but I think you used the wrong poll in regards to the whole faction arti question. My poll had 38 participants whereas Kat's only had 36. Only 34 percent favored removal of faction arties in my poll. You can also note that 71 percent did indeed favor adding cursed arties. You must also note that 54-55 percent also supported reducing faction artie cost along with removing the "owned by" tag.

    Kat's poll forced the addition of cursed arties and the removal of faction arties as an either/or situation. My poll gave alot more latitude imo and should have been the one used. Further, you will note, that some of the "do away with faction arties crowd" did vote on some of the suggested changes to faction arties in my poll thereby suggesting that those changes would make the faction arties more acceptable to them.

    Again, I agree completely with your letter and applaud your effort but Kat's poll is extremely misrepresenative of our population imo. I assume the exclusion of my poll had more to do with being lost in the shuffle than any deliberate malice or hidden agenda on your part but I also realize that Kat provided you with the intial draft and she is most capable of deliberate duplicity in these matters.

    Here is the poll in question

    http://vboards.stratics.com/showthread.php?t=186981

    Perhaps you could send another letter directing the Dev to this thread; hopefully all paricipants can keep thier disagreements above the belt:).
     
  25. Bruin

    Bruin Guest

    A few comments.

    1. I included any poll where a vote of 60% or higher of yes was achieved, to specifically exclude a poll that qualified, whether or not I agreed with that poll, could be construed as bias. I included and wrote arguments in favor of these polls regardless if I agreed, disagreed, or was indifferent to them.

    I did exclude Tiberius' poll on my final for 2 reasons. It asked the same question as the other poll "cursed arties added at an increased drop rate", and the original draft had 13000 characters. As PMs have a 5000 character limit, I wanted to keep it to a 2 part PM.

    2. Siege as a whole (or shall I say those who vote) does not believe in removal of faction artifacts (regardless of my personal opinion), I know this based on several polls that exist. The devs can see this in my post implicitly in the following two areas:

    a. Deductive reasoning. Two polls asking the same question, "re-introduction cursed arties and increased arty drop rate" but one of the polls had "remove faction artifacts" in it. The poll with the removal of faction artifacts had 63%, whereas the poll without that had a 76%. Thus one can very well see that fewer people believe in the removal of faction artifacts. A simple algebra equation would tell us that if 76% of people believe in A (increased arties), and X% believe in B (remove faction arties), and 63% believe in both, then X = 50%. Now I know this isn't truely the way statistics/etc works, but it's still reasonable, and I infer from the two polls that Siege does not want to get rid of faction arties.

    b. The following poll linked in the article explicity asks the question of removal of faction artifacts, which came back with 37%. If the devs clicked on the link, they would see that Siege is not in favor of it, which would have had the same effect of linking Tib's poll.

    Oh and Tibs - Kat wrote a short original draft, but her draft only contained the introduction and conclusion, she did not include any polls or the corresponding arguements. That was all my writing.



    I attempted to communicate to the devs the wishes of the Siege community, as shown in this forum, as unbiased as possible. No matter how unbiased something is, someone else can always point out an area of bias. I, in no way attempted to infer my personal opinions into the matter. I understand sometimes the way data is presented, it COULD introduce or a message or steer someone towards a conclusion, intended or unintended. I did NOT intend to steer the devs in any way (to removing faction artifacts), and the way I infer the data it actually proves that the community believes faction artifacts should stay. Either you believe me, or you don't, and if you don't there is no point in arguing.

    I do not intend or sending another laundry list of issues to the devs. To me, the more we pester them, the more they shy away from us. What is done is done, and I'm sorry if it does not fit with how you would have communicated this to the devs. If this results in open dialogue with the devs, ie they email me back questions/etc, I have no issue with clarifying the point to them that Siege is in favor of keeping faction arties, and will do so.
     
  26. Bruin

    Bruin Guest

    Oh Tibs, forgot to mention.

    I picked the other poll because it had a higher 'yes' response, 76% versus 71%. Yes, you make a fair point that I should have included yours instead of that one.

    I included Kats poll because it met the threshold, >60% yes.

    I had originally included those two questions in my original draft (removal of artifact bonding and lowering of silver prices), but had cut them as they were under 60% yes.
     
  27. Black magick

    Black magick Guest

    Its simple, using a poll that shows a high percentage while having one with more options AND MORE VOTES that has a lower percentage is pushing YOUR point, not the point the whole wants to make. Thus bias. I was actually talking about Kat's poll that was used in the ROT changes. It has 45 votes and 38% of people wanting faction arties removed. Get it straight, a majority that votes here doesn't want faction arties removed... no matter how much you do.
     
  28. John Connelly

    John Connelly Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    6
    3 95
     
  29. Bruin

    Bruin Guest

    Sorry, I still don't follow you. Please be specific.

    Poll A. Kat's poll about "Increased artifact drops, re-introduction of cursed artifacts, and removal of faction items" 63% yes, 36 votes.

    Poll B. Kat's poll with multiple choices, one of which was "Removal of Faction Gear" 38% yes, 45 votes. No other multiple choice options deal with artifact drops/cursed arties.

    First off, Poll A and Poll B are asking two seperate questions, thus I could not substitute Poll B for Poll A. Second, I stated up front, I included only polls in which the 'yes' vote was 60% or more. There is no point asking the devs 'Please do not remove faction gear because only 38% of the people want this'. If I did this, to not be biased, I would have to also include 'Please do not increase SoT drops because only 22% of the people want this'. If I included all polls in which we voted down a change, then the message would have been exceedingly long and most likely ignored.

    The problem here is that some people want me to THINK about which polls to include or which polls to exclude, that IS bias. I took as unbiased as an approach I could, ALL polls with 60% or more YES votes. The only exception to this is I excluded Tibs' poll, because as I stated his poll asked the exact same question as the other poll. However in this case, Tibs is right, I should have included his poll instead of Speedy's for 2 reasons: A - more people voted, B - it contained more specific poll options. However the end result would have been exactly the same. If I would have included Tibs poll about the arti drops, I would have changed my argument from this:

    To this:

    So if you want to accuse me of bias from changing the heading and increasing the % in favor from 71% to 75%, all because of 2 lousy additional votes, go for it.
     
  30. Black magick

    Black magick Guest

    Damn you're dense. The poll for adding cursed artifacts and removing faction arties was the first poll to be introduced asking about cursed artifacts. Other polls, such as Tibs' and Kat's, show that the removal of faction artifacts DON'T have a majority vote, like you claim in your letter. The poll you used gave two limited options. Now when polls were posted that included more options or a more specific question: such as Speedy's poll about raising the drop rate of artifacts and adding in cursed ones, or Kat's/Tibs' polls that seperated the specifics, like do you want faction arties removed the percentage that wanted faction arties removed was in the mid-thirties. You intentionally used a vague poll to show that the majority wanted faction arties to be removed. All other polls that got into specifics show this wasn't and isn't the case.

    I'm saying you are showing bias because out of the 3 polls that asked if faction arties should be removed, you use the first and most limiting poll available because it went with what YOU think is ideal. When 2/3 polls show a majority doesn't want faction arties removed.
     
  31. Bruin

    Bruin Guest

    Damn you're dense. =)

    I did not claim in my letter the removal of faction artifacts have a majority vote. I've already stated that if this becomes an issue and the devs communicate with me, I will make it clear to them that Siege is not in favor of removing faction artifacts.

    What you don't realize is:

    Poll Question A: Increased artifact drops, re-introduction of cursed artifacts, and removal of faction items

    Poll Question B & C: Removal of Faction Gear

    Poll Question A is NOT the same question as B & C. Therefore, just because polls B & C occured and failed, DOES NOT MEAN, I should exclude Poll A, even though YOU think I should.
     
  32. Black magick

    Black magick Guest

    The reason that poll had so many votes aye is because nobody had come up with a more specific poll. You had already put a poll that stated people wanted increased artifact drops so no need to reiterate. So again, this is boiling down to the issue of you twisting information to the cause of removing faction arties no matter how you try to spin it.
    While you didn't say out right that we wanted faction arties to go, you implied it.
     
  33. Kat

    Kat Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran TnT/TnA

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,272
    Likes Received:
    425
    Any one of you folks that are complaining could have taken the initiative yourselves. The fact is, you didn't. It appears that you would rather sit here and argue over something trivial, rather than show united support for things that could help this shard.


    WHY is it none of you put forth any effort to present something to the devs?
     
  34. Bruin

    Bruin Guest

    I understand what you are trying to say that the future polls were more specific, and this MAY have reduced the need to include that poll. However, I did not feel comfortable excluding a poll as to me specifically excluding a poll that a majority of people voted for is potentially being biased.

    Basically, there was a poll that 63% of the people were in favor of. My options were:
    A. I could include it, and be called biased because other polls did a better job.
    B. I could exclude it, and be called biased because I excluded a poll that a majority of people voted for.

    Either way it goes, I'm sure people would have been pancakes about it. I opted for B, because quite simply, a majority of people voted for something, and it fit within my parameters of >60% agreement.

    I've already told you that I believe the inclusion of that poll was proof that Siege does not want to get rid of faction artifacts and my reasons why. So by including the poll, I was going AGAINST my personal belief of getting rid of faction arties.

    And I've already said that I honestly did not intend to be biased in any way. You can chose to believe me, or you can chose to believe that I'm a biased mother****er trying to push my agenda. The choice is yours.
     
  35. Black magick

    Black magick Guest

    I'm thinking about sending a correction on that. I would have assisted, but I thought, "give it a chance maybe they won't pull something." So much for that. It's little stunts that are the reason nobody ever fully agrees. Besides, you had already said you were sending a message to them.
    @Bruin, since it was so unclear, don't use any or include all. Simple stuff.
     
  36. Bruin

    Bruin Guest

    FYI, I DID send the email below clearing the point up and hopefully putting an end to this.

    And no, the reason people never agree is not because people pull stunts. The reason people never agree is because other people take the smallest thing and believe it is a stunt.

    _______________________________________________________________

    Sorry, but just wanted to make a point of clarification. It may be construed from my original email that Siege is in favor of removing faction artifacts, that was not the intent. Polls here and here have shown that Siege is not in favor of removing faction artifacts.



    Thanks!
     
  37. Black magick

    Black magick Guest

    Cool. Other than that, all good. ^^
     
  38. archite666

    archite666 Guest

    Seriously?

    I love faction arties as much as anyone but why are you arguing over anything?

    The shard is NAIL IN THE COFFIN DEAD. Who really cares if you get rid of faction arties or not?

    Bruin took the inititive to do this, support it. He could have written that all skills be erased except for taming and id still vote for it.

    ANYTHING is better than NOTHING.

    Beggers cant be choosers, united we stand, divided we fall and all that rubbish.
     
  39. Black magick

    Black magick Guest

    I can't stand behind information that's been twisted. Thus why I rarely watch the news. Beggers can't be choosers, but whose begging? I'd rather be specific and get nothing than say get trammel here by being desperate and allowing any and every idea to go through. This is why we had the polls in the first place.
     
  40. FrejaSP

    FrejaSP Queen of The Outlaws
    Professional Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Patron The DarkOutlaws, TDO

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    Messages:
    17,308
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Thanks for writing the letter. I hope it will show the Devs, that Siege need help.

    About the factions artifacts, It's not really about removing them or not but about fixing the imbalance they give. I don't how they fix it as long factions artifacts do not have an advantage over crafted items or items from loot.

    It's all about being able to PvP without it being a pain to replace lost items. If it was easy to find a player vendor with cheap good crafted items or cursed items, we would not need the factions items.

    Before we can remove the factions items we need cursed items to spawn again and we need a increase in some crafting resources.

    My hope is a fix, so it's not a must to be in Faction to be able to PvP.
     
  41. Zebediah

    Zebediah Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    1
  42. Elfstone

    Elfstone Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    1
    /signed




    I would love to see some of these things happen on SP. I would also like it if we could Xfer in and NOT out. I think that would attract the serious pvp player that would willingly send over a character knowing that it would remain forever a SP character. Extra house and increased bank storage would be nice too. :gee: I will always and forever love Siege Perilous...
     
  43. Diablo FTW

    Diablo FTW Visitor

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    BS EMAIL....

    only the non pvper agreed. for the remove faction arty..
     
  44. Hattori Hanzo

    Hattori Hanzo Lore Keeper
    Stratics Veteran Alumni TnT/TnA

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    197
    Agreed. We need help. I have been playing my FOUR accounts on Atlantic again for about two weeks and I am getting bored.

    I honestly fear I may just mothball everything soon if Siege doesn't get some love. There is no other shard, free or paid, that has the uniqueness of Siege Perilous, tweek it some and we will rebuild the community.
     
  45. blackmanone

    blackmanone Guest

    Co-signed. Sure there is Darkfall and soon Mortal Online, but I joined Siege for this exact reason, and it'd be nice to see some more players online. My last free shard had more people on it :).
     
  46. Flavius

    Flavius Visitor
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    1
    /sign

    Thank you for taking the initiative, Bruin.
     
  47. QueenZen

    QueenZen Always Present
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2000
    Messages:
    13,642
    Likes Received:
    173
    Well said Kat !

    Thank you Bruin, for taking an inititative via sending a letter, to the devs. on behalf of Siege.
     
  48. Draxous

    Draxous Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,126
    Likes Received:
    29
    The fact is, you are the last person who should say this to anyone.

    Youve derailed the communities efforts on these kinds of things more than anyone in this thread.

    WHY is it that you think you can say dumb **** like this to anyone when you've done exactly what you're trying to scold those in this thread for?

    Grow the **** up princess.
     
  49. Black magick

    Black magick Guest

    read the whole thing dude, it's covered according to Bruin.
     
  50. Revvo

    Revvo Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    59