Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Apok

Ace's vision for Siege's

Recommended Posts

I'm actually kind of curious on how long ACE thinks and Average siege should take, to clarify I mean from the point of actually attacking the keep/castle/whatever, excluding cutting off supplies from keep because that part could easily fluctuate depending on who is cutting supplies.

Is it like a GW2 thing where it could be a matter of minutes - an hour, is it more along the lines of Archeage where it takes hours, or is it expected to take several real time days ?

Keep in mind I never played SB so if someone replies with "just like a SB siege" that means nothing to me, and if that is the case where it is just like a SB siege can someone elaborate on what a SB siege was like ?

Now obviously we are still in testing and nothing is concrete but I'm sure the fine folks at ACE have discussed this and have an idea of what they would *like* not to be confused with what it will definitely be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will probably be similar to Shadowbane sieges, unless they have a compelling reason to change some of the details to fit Crowfall.

My memory is a little fuzzy, but Shadowbane siege mechanics worked something like this:

Your city has a Tree of Life (indeed, the ToL is what makes it a city and not just a random group of buildings). The ToL can protect a limited number of buildings within a certain radius around it. It can be leveled up (ranked) at a high cost to protect more stuff. Normally the ToL and the protected buildings are immune to damage; anything else near the city is vulnerable to being raided by enemies at any time.

To attack a ToL, you buy (or in Crowfall, more likely craft) a "bane stone", which you place near the enemy city. The defenders then have to pick a specific time when they want the siege to begin (within a certain window, a couple days after the bane was placed). Both sides can now build some support buildings in preparation for the coming siege. The bane, ToL, all support buildings will remain immune until the siege time.

When the appointed time comes, the bane, ToL, and all other protected buildings become vulnerable to attack. Both sides break out their siege weapons: the attackers try to damage the ToL, the defenders try to damage the bane. The defenders will have walls the attackers have to take down first to get to the ToL. Most of the action is the two armies pvping each other to protect their respective siege weapons.

The ToL loses ranks when it takes enough damage; if it gets deranked all the way then the attackers win and gain control of the city. If the defenders manage to destroy the bane circle first, then the siege ends and their buildings become immune again.

It's possible for the attackers to cause significant damage to the city (and thus economic loss to the defenders) even if they "lose" and their bane is destroyed - but banes are very expensive, so it's possible for the attackers to spend more than the damage they cause.

If I'm remembering right - it was 15 years ago, man, don't trust me - a close siege with serious attackers and defenders usually went for around 1-2 hours. It could be a bit faster (maybe 30-45 minutes minimum) if very one sided, maybe longer if it turns into a very close pvp battle.

Edited by Avloren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah as we get more systems and content coming online hoping we get the finer details of how sieges will work soon. As said above its likely to share some mechanics with how SB did it and with what little we've heard and seen so far that's pretty much been confirmed (to be similar to SB in that regard).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed reply, that definitely makes it easier to under stand then just a generic "like SB". I played SP during testing but I was sure that wasn't a good representation of a real siege. One thing I've never been a fan of (I get the reason for it but still) is Siege Clocking, hated in AoC, hated it in AA, and hated it in countless other games (little fuzzy myself). What I mean by Siege Clocking is ok you can attack at X time on X day, if I want to siege something I want to do it now (or when I see it to be in my favor). I do understand the reason for timings, you don't want alarm clock raids every day but tbh some of those alarm clock raids were pretty epic.

In CW's it seems a bit silly to put sieges on a clock, if I spend a week cutting supplies then I want to hit that keep at it's weakest moment of my choice not when the defenders decide it's a good time for them. Maybe this won't be the case and I hope it's not, either way I'll still have fun but siege clocking definitely strips some of the fun away from it.

Edited by Apok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Apok said:

Thanks for the detailed reply, that definitely makes it easier to under stand then just a generic "like SB". I played SP during testing but I was sure that wasn't a good representation of a real siege. One thing I've never been a fan of (I get the reason for it but still) is Siege Clocking, hated in AoC, hated it in AA, and hated it in countless other games (little fuzzy myself). What I mean by timed sieges is ok you can attack at X time on X day, if I want to siege something I want to do it now (or when I see it to be in my favor). I do understand the reason for timings, you don't alarm clock raids every day but tbh some of those alarm clock raids were pretty epic.

In CW's it seems a bit silly to put sieges on a clock, if I spend a week cutting supplies then I want to hit that keep at it's weakest moment of my choice not when the defenders decide it's a good time for them. Maybe this won't be the case and I hope it's not, either way I'll still have fun but siege clocking definitely strips some of the fun away from it.

Sieging at 4AM when the defenders are offline/low numbers is a pretty lame tactic and hardly makes for fun and engaging gameplay. There will be more to a siege and other objectives to it then just the siege itself ie POIs, Caravans etc. We won't (hopefully) just be doing nothing or random PvP until a siege happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pang said:

Sieging at 4AM when the defenders are offline/low numbers is a pretty lame tactic and hardly makes for fun and engaging gameplay. There will be more to a siege and other objectives to it then just the siege itself ie POIs, Caravans etc. We won't (hopefully) just be doing nothing or random PvP until a siege happens.

i believe they said that there will be certain "vulnerable" times when you can siege a keep, this stops the whole siege when no one's online mechanic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pang said:

Sieging at 4AM when the defenders are offline/low numbers is a pretty lame tactic and hardly makes for fun and engaging gameplay. There will be more to a siege and other objectives to it then just the siege itself ie POIs, Caravans etc. We won't (hopefully) just be doing nothing or random PvP until a siege happens.

I agree 100% it is cheezy but, if its a case of people playing 24/7 then sieging should be 24/7. In some cases an alarm clock raid is a valid tactic vs a superior enemy, I've seen it done a few time in DAoC old days of relic raids and it was typically because X realm (filthy albs) was to powerful during prime time and it was the only way to tip the scales. Now obviously it can have the opposite effect as well, I'll use GW2 as the example. Some servers have massive sea/oceanic/euro coverage where others don't so it's frustrating to lose all your hard work.

It's a tough call, vulnerable times will likely work but again it kind of takes away from the here and now factor. If sieging strongly favors defenders (to much) then vulnerable times won't work either. I guess this is all just speculation so no point in trying to guess what will be but I would still like to hear what they (ACE) have in mind even if it changes because of reason x, y, or z.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Apok said:

In CW's it seems a bit silly to put sieges on a clock, if I spend a week cutting supplies then I want to hit that keep at it's weakest moment of my choice not when the defenders decide it's a good time for them. Maybe this won't be the case and I hope it's not, either way I'll still have fun but siege clocking definitely strips some of the fun away from it.

Well, note that the ToL protected only a limited number of buildings. This meant that you could do surprise raids at odd hours of the day to destroy unprotected buildings - usually guard barracks. You could also just break into the city (there were some ways to bypass walls) and murder people, very fun.

So you couldn't take the city at 4am, but you could cause some damage, just to cost them resources or to soften them for the next siege. I thought it hit a nice balance between "everything's vulnerable all the time" and "everything's immune all the time except at 6-7pm on Tuesdays".

Also note that the bane system gave you flexibility on when to set your siege time, so the defenders could take the time that fit their schedule instead of being stuck with an arbitrary dev-chosen time period.

Of course that's all for Shadowbane, Crowfall may be a bit different. I think I read somewhere that Crowfall PoIs are going to be vulnerable 24/7.

Edited by Avloren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Avloren said:

Well, note that the ToL protected only a limited number of buildings. This meant that you could do surprise raids at odd hours of the day to destroy unprotected buildings - usually guard barracks. You could also just break into the city (there were some ways to bypass walls) and murder people, very fun.

So you couldn't take the city at 4am, but you could cause some damage, just to cost them resources or to soften them for the next siege. I thought it hit a nice balance between "everything's vulnerable all the time" and "everything's immune all the time except at 6-7pm on Tuesdays".

Also note that the bane system gave you flexibility on when to set your siege time, so the defenders could take the time that fit their schedule instead of being stuck with an arbitrary dev-chosen time period.

Of course that's all for Shadowbane, Crowfall may be a bit different. I think I read somewhere that Crowfall PoIs are going to be vulnerable 24/7.

That's actually a pretty reasonable compromise. Partial attacks would definitely allow for more engaging game play. I missed the part in your original post about only some buildings being under protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I'm  not a fan of scheduled siege times. DaoC was perfect because everything was on the spot,, either you  had a window of opportunity or you  had to be reactive

to what was going on. It added to the excitement. Currently, I'm playing Black Desert Online and the scheduled node wars/  siege wars becomes somewhat of a second

job in large guilds. You  have to make sure you're at siege at  X, Y, Z, days at the scheduled time.

Just always made sense to have a US/EU crew and an Oceanic Crew for a guild in Dark Age. Got to know people from all over and had 24 hr coverage.

No system is perfect, but I prefer  the unpredictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Risk vs Reward.

I'd like to see victories earned and defenders given a chance to defend.

Ninja raids in DAoC were fun but as keeps/relics exchanged hands fairly often, it was a giant game of KOTH/CTF and no real loss happened.

Building up for days-weeks-months to have some random group attack at 3 am is not very exciting. At least not for the defenders as they are likely sleeping.

While having different time zone groups helps, if I'm playing on a NA server, I expect to play with NA players and see activity revolving around those time zones.

Great thing with CF is they can try a variety of rules/systems and see what we like. There isn't one way to play. My hope is we see a variety of win conditions along with siege rules and whatever else.

I could see those that want the hardest version in the Dregs going for no schedule and be up for attack at all times. With factions or other Dregs going with a more SB approach.

Considering they went with passive training partly to make it easier on "adults" that can't play 24/7, seems like they'll be fans of more "fair" battles, at least for big picture stuff. Should be plenty to do 24/7 outside of burning a main point to the ground. Along with that, I guessing sieges will be in the couple hours or less unless there are win conditions that require long term siege, but doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24/7 siege vulnerability is a BAD idea. These aren't DAOC/WAR/GW2 Keeps...these are carefully built and arranged castles and towns, with real man hours behind them. You yourselves would probably quit the game if you woke up and the town your guild worked so hard to build was suddenly gone. It should be a massive undertaking to siege a stronghold, not simply an early morning raid. Shadowbane's siege system is still the best system yet devised for this sort of gameplay.  


Shadowbane - House Avari/Hy'shen
"Gimp elves get good elves killed." - Belina

Avari Discord - https://discord.gg/Bch24PV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine something along the lines of Shadowbane / Darkfall.

Bane stone gets dropped and goes live 24 hours later. Once live the attackers have ~ 2 hours to capture the city by destroying the tree of life unless the bane stone is destroyed first. 


Blazzen <Lords of Death>

YouTube - Twitch - Website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24/7 vulnerability screws over smaller guilds too often who aren't so committed as to go and recruit EU players for night/morning coverage. Only the mega guilds would consider such a thing, and be capable of making it happen.

GW2 had decent battles in WvW, but balance broke and a top server fell to oblivion because the other server got a Russian, I think, guild to be night coverage and take everything during sleeping hours.

While not a perfect conparison, such is GW2 not being a great PvP game except in certain aspects, 24/7 siege vulnerability here would be like 24/7 player vulnerability, even when logged out. Unfair and unfun. Coverage of hours should not be the sole proponent in victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There won't be 24/7 asset destruction, SB got rid of it for obvious reasons. Given the history, and direction ACE seems to be going currently (And knowing that they have stated that there will be Trees of Life within each city and a Banestone Mechanic) I think it will look very much like this. I hope they do not put an artificial time limit on it (two hour window). Bane should be live until either the Banestone or Tree is destroyed. If you are unfamiliar with SB sieging, check the link.

http://morloch.shadowbaneemulator.com/index.php/Sieging


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am torn between giving the siege a time limit (2 hours-ish) or just keep it going until one of the trees dies. Having a time limit would make the fight more urgent and would give the defenders a small edge that i think is fair. OTOH i guess no time limit would favor a more strategic fight with defenders having to attack and attackers having to defend.

Thankfully with how rulesets are designed we can try both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should change the name of the mechanic? It sounds like in SB it was more of an Assault window, with the actual siege taking place in the days leading up to the bane stone actually being purchased/placed.

Also was there was a food mechanic in SB? One very real factor in sieges is supplies, namely food. Todd said something not long after the "chicken ticker" was introduced that I found quite inspiring. It put an entirely new light on the meaning of the word "siege" in CF.

Quote
Quote

Not sure if this (the food mechanic) will be viewed as an additional layer of something fun or just a general nuisance chore you have to do.

Both.  When you're hungry, it will be a nuisance.  When you burn the crops and/or steal the food stores of your enemies, leaving them desperate and starving as the campaign rolls into winter, it will be fun.

 

Todd

ACE

 

Edited by baerin
(the food mechanic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wasnt there a timewindow in testing, which got longer whenever a defender died and shorter whenever an attacker died?

sounds reasonable to me.

and it might even be a rule for some dregs campaigns to have 24/7 vulnerability.

Edited by Gromschlog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, APE said:

Risk vs Reward.

I'd like to see victories earned and defenders given a chance to defend.

Ninja raids in DAoC were fun but as keeps/relics exchanged hands fairly often, it was a giant game of KOTH/CTF and no real loss happened.

Building up for days-weeks-months to have some random group attack at 3 am is not very exciting. At least not for the defenders as they are likely sleeping.

While having different time zone groups helps, if I'm playing on a NA server, I expect to play with NA players and see activity revolving around those time zones.

Great thing with CF is they can try a variety of rules/systems and see what we like. There isn't one way to play. My hope is we see a variety of win conditions along with siege rules and whatever else.

I could see those that want the hardest version in the Dregs going for no schedule and be up for attack at all times. With factions or other Dregs going with a more SB approach.

Considering they went with passive training partly to make it easier on "adults" that can't play 24/7, seems like they'll be fans of more "fair" battles, at least for big picture stuff. Should be plenty to do 24/7 outside of burning a main point to the ground. Along with that, I guessing sieges will be in the couple hours or less unless there are win conditions that require long term siege, but doubt it.

That's all fine and well but I also am NA, am on the W coast, and often don't get on until 8 pm my time which is 1 am EST. So should I not be able to siege because you might be in bed ? It's not ideal, and considering they have stressed the fact that this game is a game made for gamers not casuals making Siege times casual seems kind of ass backwards don't you think ?

I do get what you're saying but so often people forget how many time zones are in NA, everyone doesn't work 9-5 and yes my time and money are just as valuable as everyone elses in game. With that said, I don't see alarm clock raids happening often but to suggest that you don't want to defend at 3 am, what happens if you're East coast and that 3 am is only Midnight for a West Coaster, is it fair to expect the West coast person to be on at say 3pm in the afternoon because it's 6pm for East coast ? Nope it's not but I highly doubt most see the scenario as the exact same thing, which it is.

See now with what was posted about the Tree only protecting some building, I said that was a good compromise because it allows for the assault to be somewhat organized but still allows for some siege opportunity without "permission" to attack.

@Dondagora I really don't see a smaller guild holding a heavily fortified keep in place of a larger guild, like you said this isn't GW2, people will care who is holding the main structures and it likely won't be a smaller guild.

Either way my question was more to see how long a siege would actually take on average from start to finish and what the Dev's vision was. I hope they put some more thought into it and realize Time Zones are actually a thing, and not all of the base is 9-5 east coasters.

 

Now for the point that I'm sure many will miss and jump to conclusions about, to be clear I'm not wanting to attack undefended structure because that's not much fun for either side. What I am against is having my schedule being determined by a clock that only serves a select bunch of people, they will need to find a work around for this (I'm sure people played different time zones in SB too). Separating servers/CW's by time zone may not be ideal depending on the population, so I guess what the important question should be is, what is a good work around so that everyone can enjoy all aspects of the game from small skirmishes to massive sieges?

@armegeddon After reading through that (missed the link and had to edit) it still leaves the problem of allowing the defenders to basically do the exact same thing and set it for a time that is convenient for them and possibly not the assaulters. It's the same thing as and alarm clock raid if they set the time for a time when they know the majority of the assaulting guild won't be on because lets face it after awhile you know what guilds play at what time. So I don't see that being ideal either. I realize it typically won't be one guild assaulting but usually there is one guild leading the charge and should they not be on you're defending against an leaderless militia.

I think this is a good discussion whether people agree with one another or not, maybe we come up with some good ideas for ACE to look at to further improve the SB version of siege and add more of a fun factor for everyone in the process.

Edited by Apok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...