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

Handshake siege can't come soon enough


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Jah said:

You can’t siege other people’s keeps when the castle is the only active siege in the siege window.

dude if ppl dont even siege keeps why would u think ppl would siege the castle by any chance
seems like ure trying to solve a problem related to guild adm with game mechanics that are not even implemented yet

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, 1Vulp said:

dude if ppl dont even siege keeps why would u think ppl would siege the castle by any chance
seems like ure trying to solve a problem related to guild adm with game mechanics that are not even implemented yet

People do siege keeps. There are just lots of siege windows where people don't show up. Anyone who has been playing this game for a while, and has showed up repeatedly for no-show sieges knows what I am talking about. I don't think you've had much experience with that yet. There is a reason why ACE have already acknowledged the need for handshake sieges.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

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

There is a reason why ACE have already acknowledged the need for handshake sieges.

that still doesnt translate to post launch scenarios + population growth 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

59 minutes ago, Aedius said:

Handshake is by nature a very abusable system, it cant come online without a bunch of thinking.

if it's not enough prepare, you could lock out any attackers, you could lock out people by choosing a window not possible for attackers to show up, you could lock the window frame in the night ...

It need preparation, planning, and then development.

Furthermore i hope that at laucnh it will attacks on keep every day
 

 

I mean, they already have siege windows set in the normal "primetime" window for the regions. I don't think it is too much to assume that you'd be limited to choosing a time within that window and that there would likely be a day or so for the attackers and defenders to prep. Really not much thought needed on that.

 

C4sIZDW.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be as simple as keeping the same exact 930 - 1030pm CST siege windows for keeps, but make them open everyday. 

Then if you plant a bane tree within that 930 - 1030pm CST window, in the next day's siege window a siege happens. If nobody plants a bane tree, then no siege happens the next day. 

It could literally be that simple. Would I like to be able to set my guilds own time window (within prime time hours)? Sure. 

Would I be content with just requiring a bane seed be planted? Yes. 

Also gives the attackers more skin in the game. It could even lead to defenders camping their bane tree pedestals during that hour to prevent a siege from happening and looting a bane seed. That would be kinda cool actually. 

Edited by blazzen

Blazzen <Lords of Death>

YouTube - Twitch - Website

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, blazzen said:

It could be as simple as keeping the same exact 930 - 1030pm CST siege windows for keeps, but make them open everyday. 

Then if you plant a bane tree within that 930 - 1030pm CST window, in the next day's siege window a siege happens. If nobody plants a bane tree, then no siege happens the next day. 

It could literally be that simple. Would I like to be able to set my guilds own time window (within prime time hours)? Sure. 

Would I be content with just requiring a bane seed be planted? Yes. 

Also gives the attackers more skin in the game. It could even lead to defenders camping their bane tree pedestals during that hour to prevent a siege from happening and looting a bane seed. That would be kinda cool actually. 

If skin the the game also required one seed for each bane tree, then you have an escalating cost to make it more likely you would succeed. 

Plant one seed, and it might be a feint.  Plant 4, and it's more likely an all out attack. Especially if the seeds came with a pretty high price tag.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jah said:

Rallying your guild for a defensive siege just in case someone shows up and then doing nothing is very demotivating. It makes people not want to play. And as someone who asks people to show up for defensive sieges, it makes me feel like I inflicted boredom on a bunch of people.

qft. it's a horrendous system. expensive handshake is superior in every way I have found to compare them.

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

It could be as simple as keeping the same exact 930 - 1030pm CST siege windows for keeps, but make them open everyday. 

Then if you plant a bane tree within that 930 - 1030pm CST window, in the next day's siege window a siege happens. If nobody plants a bane tree, then no siege happens the next day. 

It could literally be that simple. Would I like to be able to set my guilds own time window (within prime time hours)? Sure. 

Would I be content with just requiring a bane seed be planted? Yes. 

Also gives the attackers more skin in the game. It could even lead to defenders camping their bane tree pedestals during that hour to prevent a siege from happening and looting a bane seed. That would be kinda cool actually. 

Well, instead of showing up 2 days a week for nothing you will have to defend every day for nothing until ... You get bored and they really attack, it's that simple :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aedius said:

Well, instead of showing up 2 days a week for nothing you will have to defend every day for nothing until ... You get bored and they really attack, it's that simple :D

Only if you ignore the cost of bane trees.

IhhQKY6.gif

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

Only if you ignore the cost of bane trees.

Well, if you have 200/300 players that want to annoyed you, it's negligeable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make the handshake work like this

 

if you siege something and you lose  the defender gets the cost of the bane seed as a reward for successful defense..

no one will want to enrich their enemies that way..

www.lotd.org       pking and siege pvp since 1995

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aedius said:

Well, if you have 200/300 players that want to annoyed you, it's negligeable.

How do you know the cost is negligible without knowing the cost?

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Aedius said:

Handshake is by nature a very abusable system, it cant come online without a bunch of thinking.

if it's not enough prepare, you could lock out any attackers, you could lock out people by choosing a window not possible for attackers to show up, you could lock the window frame in the night ...

It need preparation, planning, and then development.

Furthermore i hope that at laucnh it will attacks on keep every day
 

The defender has the larger risk.  They get to set the time.  The attacker has a cheaper investment they get to pickthe day.  If you’re the attacker and you’re not willing or capable of attacking at the time the of the defenders choice did you deserve to take the city?  The defender will be there. 

40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

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

In Darkfall you had to place a gold wager to siege a city and if you lost the siege you lost the wager. 

They could maybe do that in CF to limit the fake sieges. Could scale the cost on keep rank. 

Not a bad idea.  Also gives the defenders a reward for winning the defense.  So it's a double hit that 1) you have to pony up some cash to siege someone and 2) your enemy could potentially get that pot of gold

qMEsHyg.png

www.winterblades.net

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, blazzen said:

In Darkfall you had to place a gold wager to siege a city and if you lost the siege you lost the wager. 

They could maybe do that in CF to limit the fake sieges. Could scale the cost on keep rank. 

 The Darkfall system is a good way to encourage PvP and also help discourage the no show carpetbaning that Shadowbane suffered from.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jah said:

How do you know the cost is negligible without knowing the cost?

Based on the example, put a seed to be able to attack

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with parts of this discussion, and disagree with others. I think a handshake system is needed, and I do agree a certain investment should be required. But I think instead of “plant a seed at this stronghold”, it should instead be declare intention to siege against an alliance via a war menu with associated fee, and all of the fortifications the defender owns become vulnerable for that time period ( I personally think a 2h period would be appropriate). This would encourage strategy, planning, scouting, IG politics etc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Darine said:

I agree with parts of this discussion, and disagree with others. I think a handshake system is needed, and I do agree a certain investment should be required. But I think instead of “plant a seed at this stronghold”, it should instead be declare intention to siege against an alliance via a war menu with associated fee, and all of the fortifications the defender owns become vulnerable for that time period ( I personally think a 2h period would be appropriate). This would encourage strategy, planning, scouting, IG politics etc.  

Sounds good.

Kloke

Shadowbane / Server: War / Guild: DHL / Thief: Yin / Scout: Plexiglassdragon

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...