last time i have seen u in sieges was months ago, what u see in share screen of your friends isnt everything thats happening, all the sieges i have been, its always both sides being able to get people on, there isnt such issue as ,,unfair" outnumbering, i dont see the reason of putting cap limit to players participating in sieges since if u are losing badly a big siege u need to somehow clutch up, if numbers decide your victory or loss, thats skill issue

and i mean literally, u need a tiny bit of skill to play this game, dont delete that

Some people are saying this is a bit of copium but honestly I think it works. Think about it. Even skill based games will give you a set amount of players on your team. I think doing the same with sieges would balance it. You shouldn’t lose because you have the same skill as your opponent but they just have more members.

i wouldn't say sides are unfair in numbers atm, but i won't argue that. sieges aren't meant to be fair because that would just be a /server pvp fight. you are supposed to put yourself in a situation to win. you do this by either making allies, recruiting, or having certain tactics/skill. geopolitics isn't meant to be fair, just like irl. anyone can be successful in geopolitics, but you have to set yourself up for that

This has a few major effects:
1) Sieges would see less action (because both sides would be player limited)
2) *You* would never be able to participate in a siege (A nation would only choose it's best fighters, so new players would never get to experience a siege)

They can indirectly participate by supplying in seiges

ijust the main reason I haven't been participating in sieges is because the phase of life I am going through is very important for most asians (idk about others).

Although there will be less action, the seiges will be fore fair. I would choose fair gameplay over entertainment anyday

ijust I will throw 3 players at you gg and if you die its a skill issuee!!!!!

that's not fun at all. grinding is very boring, but people grind anyway so they can fight and win in sieges. if you are going to grind, and aren't allowed to fight, then not many people will grind. if i was a new player, then i definitely wouldn't play on ccnet if my leader told me i'm not allowed to fight in sieges but only grind

Grinding is fun when you do it from the bottom of your heart. If you care for your nation dearly, then grinding isnt a pain. Again, there by your point, you are viewing from your point of view as in coalition just because you guys have a lot more active players. But if you want to tackle that I issue, there could be a limit of no of battle sessions a player can play in a single day (for eg 3) which would force you to rotate players.

why would new players care for their nation tho? and why does it matter that i'm in the coalition? n2 is old and i've been outnumbered, the one outnumbering, and equal numbers for both offensive and defensive. i've won while being outnumbered, and i've lost while being the one who outnumbered the enemy. so it's silly to say i don't have an input on this because u think coalition outnumbers their enemies. u shouldn't argue how the numbers are rn anyway because no one will agree on that, and it's not so easy to say one side outnumbers the other. it all depends on the time of day. some sessions the coalition has 2-3x more ppl than the gne alliance, and other sessions it's the opposite

also the battle session limit has been suggested before, but ppl didn't like it. it actually would benefit the side with more players way too much

do i have to remind u that alliance had 40+ cappers on banner and still got crushed? it's not just a numbers game and the player limit suggestions you made are very bad because it's only going to draw sweats and lokans to sieges

at Livland siege**

frambaby you are talking about what happened months ago. Please read my suggestion properly. It said "in correspondence to recent seiges".

Again turtle it depends in how many numbers you were outnumbered.

I hate to say it, but when your are outnumbered (it's bound to happen, you just have the deal with it) you must adapt accordingly

If 25 people are capping the banner and you only have 10 people, use cannons to disturb them and engage with movecraft (or smth, idk what *you* have prepared)

Sieges are not a linear [hold W with sword into enemy and kill them all] event, a nation must be dynamic in a siege, and adapt to what the opponent is doing (something I'm seeing less and less of in these more recent sieges)

The solution to this "problem" it to provide multiple engagement methods for you (the outnumbered side) to utilise

It isn't about a single session Rick. It's about that in all of the sessions