Archeage

Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,041
Adebisi_sl said:
I was watching a demo by Trion and the presenter said something like

"Once a week an item comes up to auction and the winner of that auction gets to siege your castle"

This doesn't sound very sandboxy
frown.png
Click to expand...
I actually think it does a good job of abstracting a siege if it works how I think it does. I assume you can buy your own deed? If so; then it's almost exactly how Sieges really worked. The more wealthy the castle, the higher stocks it had; and the more reinforcements came--making maintaining siege lines more expensive AND having that expense take longer (A year long siege, if a castle had a force that could amplify normal attrition, cost afortuneto maintain)..In the end, sieges really came down to who had more money (Well, technically better access to supplies, but it can be distilled down to money).

Again though, that's if you can big on your own siege item. Because then the defenders can pay extra to make your siege more expensive (Which again, was pretty much how it was.).....Really, sieges in history were pretty boring; just a bunch of guys sitting around for months or even years until one side starves (Sometimes the sieging armies just literally got up and went home because their money/supplies ran out first.)
 
Selix

Selix

Lord Nagafen Raider
2,149
4
Lithose_sl said:
I actually think it does a good job of abstracting a siege if it works how I think it does. I assume you can buy your own deed? If so; then it's almost exactly how Sieges really worked. The more wealthy the castle, the higher stocks it had; and the more reinforcements came--making maintaining siege lines more expensive AND having that expense take longer (A year long siege, if a castle had a force that could amplify normal attrition, cost afortuneto maintain)..In the end, sieges really came down to who had more money (Well, technically better access to supplies, but it can be distilled down to money).

Again though, that's if you can big on your own siege item. Because then the defenders can pay extra to make your siege more expensive (Which again, was pretty much how it was.).....Really, sieges in history were pretty boring; just a bunch of guys sitting around for months or even years until one side starves (Sometimes the sieging armies just literally got up and went home because their money/supplies ran out first.)
Click to expand...
Well they are also placing a limit on how many people can seige a castle correct?
 
Pyros

Pyros

<Silver Donator>
11,310
2,416
an accordion_sl said:
It's a chance to make your recall/tp not consume a cooldown, rather than buffing blink.
Click to expand...
That's actually not correct. The tooltip is simply badly translated, it does what it's supposed to do, which is reset blink cooldown. It would be beyond awful if it reseted Recall cooldown.
 
Pyros

Pyros

<Silver Donator>
11,310
2,416
Quaid_sl said:
oh thank god lol
Click to expand...
Yeah at first I was like "what the fuck, this is a joke right?" so when I had enough gold I respeced into it(since there's no level req on passives it was pretty easy) and yeah it resets blink, sometimes. It's really good when it procs, but obviously not guaranteed. Generally not too expensive to get though since you'll take the 2 CC stuff, blink itself, the shield and the sleep, so only need 2more points which you can get with the heal on dmg taken passive, thwart for aoe control get off me shit or energy wave for the movespeed buff or pain killer for random invuln procs then into it.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
49,518
88,305
Lithose_sl said:
I actually think it does a good job of abstracting a siege if it works how I think it does. I assume you can buy your own deed? If so; then it's almost exactly how Sieges really worked. The more wealthy the castle, the higher stocks it had; and the more reinforcements came--making maintaining siege lines more expensive AND having that expense take longer (A year long siege, if a castle had a force that could amplify normal attrition, cost afortuneto maintain)..In the end, sieges really came down to who had more money (Well, technically better access to supplies, but it can be distilled down to money).

Again though, that's if you can big on your own siege item. Because then the defenders can pay extra to make your siege more expensive (Which again, was pretty much how it was.).....Really, sieges in history were pretty boring; just a bunch of guys sitting around for months or even years until one side starves (Sometimes the sieging armies just literally got up and went home because their money/supplies ran out first.)
Click to expand...
Yeah it's an interesting abstraction, though in a sandbox game this abstraction is a little out of place. As long as our castle is attacked by a huge enemy every week I'm okay with this system, but I could definitely see an end result where the top 5 guilds never have to defend their castle from a real enemy.
Selix_sl said:
Well they are also placing a limit on how many people can seige a castle correct?
Click to expand...
Yeah. Each side gets 70 to start with that must be in their guild. The defenders can then choose to recruit 30 'mercenaries' aka people from outside their guild. If they recruit mercs then the attackers can too. I'm not sure how it'll all play out.
 
Vitality

Vitality

ＨＵＳＴＬＥ
5,808
30
Tuco_sl said:
Yeah it's an interesting abstraction, though in a sandbox game this abstraction is a little out of place. As long as our castle is attacked by a huge enemy every week I'm okay with this system, but I could definitely see an end result where the top 5 guilds never have to defend their castle from a real enemy.

Yeah. Each side gets 70 to start with that must be in their guild. The defenders can then choose to recruit 30 'mercenaries' aka people from outside their guild. If they recruit mercs then the attackers can too. I'm not sure how it'll all play out.
Click to expand...
I shall win wars with Cow Milk!
 
Eidal

Eidal

Molten Core Raider
2,001
213
Tuco_sl said:
Yeah it's an interesting abstraction, though in a sandbox game this abstraction is a little out of place.
Click to expand...
Having a clear-cut start time to a siege is mandatory to balance aggressor vs defender. Otherwise, the element of surprise is far too powerful. Even IF you had a strong crew all willing to wake up to a 2 am batphone, how long does it take to start the process and is this dynamic actually fun? The entire point to attacking, winning, taking territory, and developing territory is to have an advantage in some sense. To push the burden onto the attacker (that whole 3 attacker to 1 defender). As much as I hate referencing history when discussing game play elements, think of how absurd it'd be if a castle siege from the past involved the defenders living else where and having to rush to defend the keep (as opposed to living inside the keep). That's what we have to deal with in MMOs so SOME sort of artificial agreed upon time to match e-penii is necessary.
 
Vitality

Vitality

ＨＵＳＴＬＥ
5,808
30
I think I'm going to be the Iron Bank in this game, guilds will come to me for cash advances in wars and if they don't pay up I'll fund enemies and mercenary groups to trash their shit.

#GameOfCows
 
Adebisi

Adebisi

Clump of Cells
<Silver Donator>
27,899
30,684
Can you still pvp around their castles at all hours? Like cut off their supplies coming in?
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
49,518
88,305
Eidal_sl said:
Having a clear-cut start time to a siege is mandatory to balance aggressor vs defender. Otherwise, the element of surprise is far too powerful. Even IF you had a strong crew all willing to wake up to a 2 am batphone, how long does it take to start the process and is this dynamic actually fun? The entire point to attacking, winning, taking territory, and developing territory is to have an advantage in some sense. To push the burden onto the attacker (that whole 3 attacker to 1 defender). As much as I hate referencing history when discussing game play elements, think of how absurd it'd be if a castle siege from the past involved the defenders living else where and having to rush to defend the keep (as opposed to living inside the keep). That's what we have to deal with in MMOs so SOME sort of artificial agreed upon time to match e-penii is necessary.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. I've been in my share of
Emanuel_Leutze_-_Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_-_WGA12909.jpg


and important sieges scheduled ahead of time during primetime is the way to go.

I'm not really judging the siege auction system yet, but I like the way SB did it where a guild could accrue an expensive banestone and freely place it on a city. Both sides could then bring whatever forces together they wanted. For reference:Sieging - Morloch Wiki

That being said, having an auction and then a structured 70vs70 has some real advantages.

The other balance to maintain is having set times a city is vulnerable vs allowing guilds to wage war outside the siege times. Historically if we're going to war with someone, the time before our city assault is filled with blockades, attacking any and all vulnerable assets, aggressively hunting and destroying all characters in a guild and their allies etc. In these games wars are won from attrition and if the game doesn't support that enough the war between guilds becomes too structured and sterile, but if the game allows a guild to completely terrorize an enemy (ex: shadowbane) you end up with ghost servers.
 
R

Rescorla_sl

shitlord
2,233
0
Eidal_sl said:
Having a clear-cut start time to a siege is mandatory to balance aggressor vs defender. Otherwise, the element of surprise is far too powerful. Even IF you had a strong crew all willing to wake up to a 2 am batphone, how long does it take to start the process and is this dynamic actually fun? The entire point to attacking, winning, taking territory, and developing territory is to have an advantage in some sense. To push the burden onto the attacker (that whole 3 attacker to 1 defender). As much as I hate referencing history when discussing game play elements, think of how absurd it'd be if a castle siege from the past involved the defenders living else where and having to rush to defend the keep (as opposed to living inside the keep). That's what we have to deal with in MMOs so SOME sort of artificial agreed upon time to match e-penii is necessary.
Click to expand...
Since you brought it up, I am curious to know how this game will manage what should be a major, inherent advantage to the defender with both sides start out with the same number of people.

If the siege system is designed with any semblance of realism, the attackers should need roughly a 3:1 or 4:1 advantage in numbers in order to counter the defender's advantage of being behind a wall plus having the high ground.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
49,518
88,305
From:[BREAKING NEWS] Oran'Thul Smugglers Thwarted!!
HSWorldboss02mp4Still001.png

The allied forces approach the Oran'Thul smugglers' fleet.

SUNDAY, MAY 18TH - HALCYONA GULF

Citizens of Golden Fable Harbor were going about their daily business when they suddenly noticed two galleons and several clippers sail out of port and into the sea. These were the ships of several forces, led by Krogger of <Nui World Order>.

"We received intelligence from our scouts in Ynystere that the Oran'Thul were planning a smuggling operation," said Krogger. "So we rallied several different guilds from around Nuia and set out to oppose them."

Members from <Nui World Order>, <Knights of Chaos>, <More Money Than Sense>, and several other guilds teamed up and formed a ship blockade in the Halcyona Gulf. Using advanced radar technology, the alliance tracked down the incoming smuggling ships and sent strike forces on clippers to ambush them.

HSWorldboss02mp4Still002.png

One of the strike forces boards the Oran'Thul smuggler ship, eliminating the ne'er-do-wells with ease.

"The cooperation between our guilds was fantastic," said Sct, leader of <More Money Than Sense>. "Our strike forces were all carefully composed for maximum unit efficiency, and on top of that, some renegades from <Alpha Testers>, <Limit Break>, and even some pirates joined us!"

Feedz, though a citizen of Haranya, joined the Nuian alliance in attacking the Oran'Thul smugglers. When asked why, he said,

"Nobody likes them." (rough translation)

HSWorldboss02mp4Still004.png

With the smuggled goods secured, the strike force members ferry them to authorities in Ezna.

Once the smugglers had been wiped out, the contraband was turned in to the royal guard of Ezna. Officials declared that security would be enhanced in order to prevent future smuggling attempts.

"There are many dangerous substances - opiates, for example - that are produced on the Haranyan continent," explained Mynx, leader of <Knights of Chaos>. "And while trade is vitally important to both continents, it's important that we moderate imports that could cause serious harm to our population."

The Eznan throne rewarded all members of the strike force in gold for their bravery, and even decorated Krogger with a certificate of knighthood for organizing the feat.

"At the end of the day, success comes down to bravery and strategy," said Krogger. "We might not be the largest guild, but we are the most organized."

For the Nui Newsletter, I'm Kriptini.

(Footage!http://youtu.be/N_XsnQSF2dM)
 
Raes

Raes

Vyemm Raider
3,264
2,720
Well, if you want to bring realism into it, you don't always need an advantage in numbers. Superior tech, strategy, or cheating (sabotage, spies, assassins, etc) could also give you an advantage.
 
Pasteton

Pasteton

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,916
2,088
What would be cool is have some kind of disincentives against off peak sieging, rather than heavyhandedly blocking it at the cost of immersion. Say for example there were certain critical siege weapons that weren't available or much more difficult to mobilize in certain weather or time of day conditions, or just the time to simply prepare for / setup to siege a castle was long enough that the defenders had ample time to mount up. 'Realistically' speaking, if someone were to siege a castle by surprise, there would still be the enormous tasks of loving over a large force and weapons, trying to do so undetected would be impossible. In a video game, since things have to happen more conveniently and quickly to satiate gamers patience levels, this doesn't play out as naturally, but if they found a way to build in timers on these things to reflect the 'actual' difficulty of sieging a castle, then the surprise element, while still existing, will be much more tempered by realism elements , while at the same time allowing for a very skillful team to manipulate the odds as much in their favor as possible- this option would be better than, say, the game just telling you 'no you aren't allowed to siege now'
 
R

Rescorla_sl

shitlord
2,233
0
Raes_sl said:
Well, if you want to bring realism into it, you don't always need an advantage in numbers. Superior tech, strategy, or cheating (sabotage, spies, assassins, etc) could also give you an advantage.
Click to expand...
I'm just operating under the assumption that any PVP siege system where the defenders inside a castle do not have a major competitive advantage is a poorly designed system. In other words, in a properly designed PVP siege system, 100 defenders should almost always (90+%) defeat 100 attackers.
 
Raes

Raes

Vyemm Raider
3,264
2,720
Rescorla_sl said:
I'm just operating under the assumption that any PVP siege system where the defenders inside a castle do not have a major competitive advantage is a poorly designed system. In other words, in a properly designed PVP siege system, 100 defenders should almost always (90+%) defeat 100 attackers.
Click to expand...
It's hard to simulate all real world conditions in an mmo. It really needs to boil down to skill vs skill. You want castles to change hands, but not to make it too easy or too hard, because then people won't bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.