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

Using Siege Warfare to Promote Game Play

Recommended Posts

One of the subjects brought up in the recent developer discord chat involved finding a way to make defense of forts a more interesting focus of game play.

Right now unless you are in the immediate area, it isn't really possible to actually assemble a defensive force and make your way to the fort in time to make a difference.

The ideas I heard discussed in the developer chat involved implementing some sort of notification system which alerts you when NPC guard at a fort would be able to see any opposing faction.

First of all, I don't think this approach would be effective or fun. You would end up getting many false notifications and even then you would still only get perhaps 30 seconds additional time to respond. That is not nearly enough. In my opinion, you need approximate 15-20 minutes to effectively respond in force to a remote location.

To make something like that possible, here is one way that I believe would make for some interesting game play. The first step is making it so that walls absolutely prevent all assaults which do not include a sufficiently powerful siege weapon. The second step is to make it so that siege weapons can only be deployed in the area surrounding the rune gates at the periphery of the maps. From these locations, the weapons would need to be escorted as they are slowly rolled into position. Perhaps forts can be attacked using a lighter and faster class of siege weapons, while keeps require a heavier and slower weapon. Opposing factions would be notified when siege weapons are first deployed at these peripheral areas.

This would set up the scenarios where the offensive force must act first in defending their caravan of siege weapons as they make their way to the location of the assault. The defenders would be rushing to rally and locate the caravan.

All of this would require a fair bit of balancing to make it so the siege weapons in transport are hardy enough that they aren't easily destroyed without first defeating the escort force. There could perhaps be a transport form of the siege weapons where they are packed into a cart and are more tanky. Then, once ready to deploy there could be some sort of transition time where the siege weapons are move into the attack configuration, and finally the actual assault of the fort or the keep.

Hopefully, if such a mechanic were in the game, it would avoid the need to have fixed vulnerability time slots in quite the way they are implemented now. While these vulnerability time slots do help attackers meet defenders with more regularity, they do it in an artificial way. Whereas a siege caravan mechanic could do the same thing in a very thematic and strategic way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a shabby idea.

12 minutes ago, jollyhaha said:

The second step is to make it so that siege weapons can only be deployed in the area surrounding the rune gates at the periphery of the maps. From these locations, the weapons would need to be escorted as they are slowly rolled into position. Perhaps forts can be attacked using a lighter and faster class of siege weapons, while keeps require a heavier and slower weapon. Opposing factions would be notified when siege weapons are first deployed at these peripheral areas.

This would set up the scenarios where the offensive force must act first in defending their caravan of siege weapons as they make their way to the location of the assault. The defenders would be rushing to rally and locate the caravan.

Not a shabby idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What speed would you intend for the siege wagons? Walking speed, running speed, mount speed? With the distance of some forts to the runegates i feel like alot of people would stop bothering with forts if it just takes a crazy amount of time to get the wagons there. It would also mean the distance of the forts to runegates would have to be considered when balancing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the notification on siege engine deployment in a zone would be gamed .... doesn't cost that much to trigger the early warning system with one player.

I agree with @Glitchhiker that if its too hard or time consuming people would not bother, especially given the fairly low reward with fort taking when compared with keeps.  I think forts should be a viable cap option for 5+ groups.  Again, if it is too hard or takes too much organization there will be less fights as opposed to more.

An early warning system that reflects the number of enemy within the fort range could reduce false positives and also help a defender gauge what is needed for effective response or counter attack.  Further, it does not take 15-20 minutes to mount a defense if people elect to respond.  A couple minutes can make a difference.  Once they get mounts back you can get around fairly quickly.

Forts should be tough enough that it would take considerable effort and time for a 5 group to take it down.  Again, I believe there is time to respond should players choose to do so.  

Finally I think I agree with most .... no vulnerability timers on forts.

Lower cost light siege that could effect for walls but not keeps might not be a bad idea couple with tougher fort walls and an increase in fort points.

 

Edited by Cosian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Glitchhiker said:

What speed would you intend for the siege wagons? Walking speed, running speed, mount speed?

Probably a straight percentage reduction from the prevailing travel speed of most players.  If that is mounted, then maybe .8*mounted  or some such.  Then the transition from transport mode to assualt mode could be used to build in some additional delay if needed.  The exact way you would do it would of course need to be tuned.  The main thing though is that travel time from rune gate to fort or keep should naturally approximate the response time of the defense.  The response on defense would involve time to communicate, time to deliberate whether to respond, time to hearth back to the temple and then finally time to travel to the keep or fort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cosian said:

I think the notification on siege engine deployment in a zone would be gamed .... doesn't cost that much to trigger the early warning system with one player.

Let it be gamed to a degree.  Such a thing would not be without some strategy.  Impose durability loss on deployment to discourage overuse of the tactic.

 

7 hours ago, Cosian said:

I think forts should be a viable cap option for 5+ groups.  Again, if it is too hard or takes too much organization there will be less fights as opposed to more.

If the vision of fort/keep encounters is a pvp experience, then the number of players required for an assualt will be highly variable and mostly determine by how many human defenders there are.  Also, an encounter that is too easy or too predictable may just as easily discourage game play.  In a PVP centric game I think the design goal should be to facilitate play which directly plots one force against another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jollyhaha said:

Let it be gamed to a degree.  Such a thing would not be without some strategy.  Impose durability loss on deployment to discourage overuse of the tactic.

 

Hmmm .... on one hand the original posts cites concerns with false notifications.  I think the concept underestimates the degree to which this will be gamed.....one alt and some mats.  No one will care about durability and guilds will have plenty of mats to throw up at a whim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cosian said:

Hmmm .... on one hand the original posts cites concerns with false notifications. 

I am concerned about it being too easy to fake an attack.  I'm just okay with it being possible to do so on occasion.  Durability loss is an example of a knob you could use to accomplish that.  Taken to its extreme, you could make siege weaponry one-time use items.  While large guilds certainly could afford to do that more often than others, I don't think that it is accurate to say that guild behavior cannot be affected by calibrating the costs appropriately.

Edited by jollyhaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...