Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Vicid

(just guessing) Cost to attack a city in Dregs

Recommended Posts

Since we don't know the mechanics yet I am curious what people think/want the mechanics to be for attacking a city.

In shadowbane the ability to attack a city took resources, not just buying siege equipment but it costs a lot of gold to start the siege.  

Are we expecting player run cities to simply become vulnerable at set times? (costing the attackers basically nothing to attack?)  I'm worried that might effect the political stability of these campaigns.  I really hope it costs gold, not because I like grinding, but because I feel like it makes a siege of a player run city a much more important event.

Also if it costs gold to start a siege that helps give gold more value.  Just a random idea while we wait for news.


12Oe7ot.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely liked the fact that there was a significant cost associated with putting a siege on an enemy city in Shadowbane which forced them to show up and defend.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be some measure of equality in the risk of loss as compared to the cost of attack.  The winner of the scenario should definitely reap in some of those rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming Dregs uses the same siege schedule / mechanics, the best way I can think to add a "cost" for the attackers to siege a city would be to add more cost to the siege engines themselves. 

EDIT: Another idea is to add cost to the item used to claim the keep once the ToL is destroyed. Instead of a golden apple, maybe some kind of claim deed that costs X amount of gold at a vendor. That would also mean someone would have to keep that claim deed in their inventory, subject to looting, during the siege (once banking anywhere goes away). 

Edited by blazzen

Blazzen <Lords of Death>

YouTube - Twitch - Website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Siege tents... other than providing command rods I forgot their function.  A bank?   A spawn point?

I *REALLY* wanna get away from siege schedules on dregs.  I think sieges for keeps should be big events, not just your 4th shift of guard duty this week.


12Oe7ot.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schedules are unfortunately the only great equalizer and one of the reasons you see many sandbox/PvP games adopting them. Defenders need some ability to dictate when they can defend, theirs some variance to this method: static schedules, negotiated schedules via siege initialization, etc...

Costs are good, but like most things totally depends on the level of inflation and availability in the game. If an attacker can spam Sieges whenever they want, the cost didn’t do much but deter the weakest.

As to what a good baseline costs should be: about 75% or more of cost of whatever your targeting for destruction or capture. Only way to make the stakes somewhat fair, if attacking is cheap it will be constant.

But given the limited timeframe of campaigns and the primary focus on winning them, I expect very little here. Also depends on what Campaign victory conditions really are.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


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

Schedules are unfortunately the only great equalizer and one of the reasons you see many sandbox/PvP games adopting them. Defenders need some ability to dictate when they can defend, theirs some variance to this method: static schedules, negotiated schedules via siege initialization, etc...

Automatic sieges 5 times per week is what Vicid is talking about getting away from. There would still need to be a way for defenders to negotiate a time that works for them when a siege is initiated against them.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that, but even negotiated Sieges can be restrictive depending on the rules for them. For example right this second if you could force me into a weekend siege regardless of the specific time, I would be well under staffed compared to a weekday. If gaming scheduling defeats us more than anything else, the game becomes unfun for what I suspect is a large segment of the playerbase. 

In my experience I’ve come to prefer the defender setting a known schedule for X window of time versus everyone is on the same schedule. I’ve seen it done a few ways, X hours of open time in a week, or X days with a set Y time of vulnerability. 

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Duffy said:

I get that, but even negotiated Sieges can be restrictive depending on the rules for them. For example right this second if you could force me into a weekend siege regardless of the specific time, I would be well under staffed compared to a weekday. If gaming scheduling defeats us more than anything else, the game becomes unfun for what I suspect is a large segment of the playerbase. 

You are already forced into understaffed sieges on weekends by the existing schedule. The changes suggested in this thread would make that less frequent, unless someone kept paying the cost to make it happen.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why wouldn’t they pay the cost to do so if they could? Sometimes there isn’t a significant difference from someone attacking during off hours for a free win or defenders at half strength cause bad timing if the results are guaranteed to be the same. 

I don’t find winning via scheduling to be a very fun mechanic. Obviously theirs no 100% foolproof way to go about it, but given that usually the defender has the most at risk cost wise I don’t generally mind giving them the scheduling advantage. Especially since as the attacker I can aim for anyone that lines up with my preferred schedule, whereas a defender has no such luxury if choosing to engage or not.

That’s the tradeoff in my mind, attackers can hit anyone that lines up with their schedules, but in exchange defenders can pick their preferred times. You can push these closer together by forcing defenders to pick within a prime time window for their server to avoid “abusing” super early/late windows like some  games have ran into. We’ll have to see what they come up with.

Edited by Duffy

lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


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

given that usually the defender has the most at risk cost wise I don’t generally mind giving them the scheduling advantage.

Totally agreed.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Albion online has a decent take of the siege scheduling.  Basically, different zones have different vulnerability windows to fit different time zones, and you can then choose which zone is best to build your hideout in to suit your guild's play times.  It's still scheduled siege windows but at least there's an element of control and regularity. 

 

On the flip side, this method works better when you can have various holdings in different zones, rather than one big keep.

Edited by Dern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to see a siege system allowing major assets to be destroyed that I think is really good, but I think EvE's system is the least bad.

The Corp owning an asset decides what time the asset becomes vulnerable. If it gets attacked during that window and defeated, it is put into reinforced mode.

The duration of the reinforced mode is determined by the amount of calthrates kept in the tank by the owner. Might be none, only a few hours, or it might be 3 days worth. Only they know until it's forced into reinforced, and then everyone knows.

While in reinforced mode the asset operates with only core functionality, so the owner takes a risk either way. Only put a few hours fuel, they can get it back quickly, but they also need to be able to mount a defense on short notice. Max the timer out and they get 3 days to mount a defense, and may be able to mount a counter strike or negotiate a deal before the timer ends, but their asset is offline for days.

The attacker doesn't need to put any real investment into the attack, beyond theirs ships, clones & their time, but that first attack isn't going to actually get the real rewards either. It's the 2nd attack that really matters, and the defender is able to stack the deck with both the vuln window and the reinforced timer.

Edit: a heavily defended station in EvE isn't something a small group of players in trash ships is going to go take out just for the sake of irritating the owning Corp. With no player defenders they can put up a real defense if built right. With a handful of defenders, a well built station is a fortress that'll repel a moderate force.

Edited by VaMei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, VaMei said:

The Corp owning an asset decides what time the asset becomes vulnerable. If it gets attacked during that window and defeated, it is put into reinforced mode.

This seems similar (perhaps borrowed) by Albion in the recent big patch.  Attackers must beat the defenders in the vulnerable window each successive day until each layer of shielding is down.  Some days each side has different numbers online potentially, so it helps alleviate the urgency every day when real life needs to happen.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...