* Siege games started

I think these are separate issues. When I first read the Siege rules, they both occurred to me: 1) top players can dominate, and 2) why do draws go to White?
It never crossed my mind that these two are connected, and I still don't see the connection.
I don't know how to prevent top players from dominating the castles, and so I never bothered commenting on it.
If top rated players want to keep weaker players out of the castles, they will. It won't matter whether attacker or defender gets the draws.
I feel the issue of which way draws go should be decided on the hypothetical case of an attacker and defender with equal ratings.

I tend to lean on the side of draws to the attacker. While I think that conceptually a draw might "feel" like a successful defense, I also think that holding the fort should be made as difficult as possible; so that being the king of the castle for several games would feel like a real achievement.

As to the problem of high ratings ending up dominating, I agree with Huntingbear to a degree - which way draws go when there is a several hundred point gap between players may not matter much. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it doesn't matter at all though - even very strong players make mistakes sometimes, maybe allowing the lower rated player to draw on occasion.

A good improvement, I think, would be to have which way the draw goes determined by the rating difference; so that if a high rated player is defending a castle against a lower rated opponent, only winning would defend the castle successfully, while if the ballance of rating difference swung the other way, a draw would suffice.

To solve the problem of high rated players floting to the top, I think the only real solution would be to have the different colour castles be restricted to certain ranges of ratings.

For example:
Yellow castles: Below 1300
Green castles: 1300 - 1500
Blue castles: 1500 - 1700
Red castles: above 1700

The control of the castles would still tend to gravitate to the highest rated players within the rating-bracket, but more people would have a chance. The problem of course is that if someone, for example got to hold the green castle (1300 - 1500), but their rating went above 1500 while holding the castle, what should be done? 😕

-Jarno

I agree with the color / rating seperation - otherwise the not so good players won't have a chance (ala me).

Also, this will stop someone from entering all the sieges.
This is the main reason I'm posting here actually. Prefect who is rated at 1661 now, has entered every one of the sieges. If something like this is allowed it'll just kill this feature for me before it even starts properly.

Russ is right, to stop good players dominating the thing, a draw should be a victory for the attacker!

Olav

No way....People say that to avoid strong players from dominating castles draws should go to the attackers, but what if a weaker player is defending? A draw is great then. Imagine a real battle, and miraculously all the soldiers die (from the plague), the castle is in theory not taken over by the attackers, giving a default win to the defender as there is no one to occupy the fort! Maybe we can compromise eh? MAKE IT BOTH depending on the ratings!

if(defenderRating >= attackerRating)
{
draw = attackerwin;
}
else
{
draw = defenderwin;
}

Russ should appreciate this! It makes sense this way more than any other way, as it helps slightly in dealing with rating differentials! 😀

This sounds like a good compromise, about the outcome of draws being determined by the ratings difference.

The ratings limits by castle color might get sticky, but would probably work. You know, if I'm in one bracket today and win that castle, but a few weeks later a get some wins and my rating kicks me into the next bracket. Not a big deal, I'm sure, but a minor point for consideration.

I had an idea last night as I was getting to sleep. What if a castle occupant who made, say, ten successful defenses was then evicted from the castle, which would be occupied by the next person in queue? We could then include a stat. for each player identifying the number of Complete Defenses (holding a castle against ten attackers) he or she has achieved. Further, the individual defense streak statistic could still accumulate beyond ten, if it carried over when the player captured another castle. His new defenses would add to his streak until he actually lost a castle to an attacker.
This would allow long (even indefinite!) streaks for strong players while still giving weaker players the chance to occupy castles. And the further goal of Complete Defenses gives a whole new thing to compete and to brag about. Thoughts?

Originally posted by huntingbear
I had an idea last night as I was getting to sleep. What if a castle occupant who made, say, ten successful defenses was then evicted from the castle, which would be occupied by the next person in queue? We could then include a stat. fo ...[text shortened]... es gives a whole new thing to compete and to brag about. Thoughts?

I think that's a really good idea, although, given that there's at least 100 active players rated above 1650, ratings bands for castles might still be highly desirable.

Having said that, if top players did come to dominate the castles, at least it would be a chance for mere mortals (not to mention "p1200"s with stars) to get a chance to play them. To that end, I'd suggest that there should be no lower rating limits, only upper limits, at something like the levels suggested by Pyrrho.

Originally posted by huntingbear
Suggestion: I think a draw should hold the castle for the defender.

I think a draw should capture the castle, beacause if that were the case, then only true champions would be able to hold their castles, and the castles would'nt have to be made rating dependent.

Remember, one of the objectives of the siege system is to improve one's ability to DEFEND the fort. Thus, by making attacking easier, you make defence harder