Prelude: World 12

[quintovir]

How about having defenders pick a siege day and time once every 2 weeks?

[snapko]

How about having defenders pick a siege day and time once every 2 weeks?

It seems that there are common misconception or it wasnt explained properly but defenders can, apparently, press charge button WHENEVER they want. So you can choose time wich is suitable for you, not exactly at the end of 2 weeks before level drop.

Tho defending for 8 hours straight is a bit too much, reasonable time would be 3-4 hours tbh.

[KwonChiMin]

How about having defenders pick a siege day and time once every 2 weeks?

well... this system is kinda like you are saying. defenders pick up 8hrs siege window.

[boreial]

So. Basically, with the siege and combat changes being proposed, Hermits are not welcome in the Hearthlands. Thanks. (not)

[shubla]

I wonder how many people are not going to play w12 because they read about these changes (even if they are changed before the reset)?

[Vraatjuh]

Can't you make it so that all vclaims start on power 1 and cannot decline to power 0 at all. Only when powering up your claim to 2 and above, is it prone to dropping to zero.
Of course, there has to be an incentive to level the claim at all in this case, so make it so that claims can only be expanded beyond a certain M2 when having a certain power level.

This would protect hermits and very small villages, as they would just leave the power level at 1 and would make anyone who wants to increase their village claim vulnerable.
Giving some freedom of choice.

Yes, this can be abused by factions by having a small claim staying on level 1, surrounded by a bigger claim. But they will find ways to abuse this system anyway.
Because they only want to be able to attack others, but will do anything they can do make their own base raid-proof.
Maybe you can make it so that a village claim can not be surrounded by another village claim?

[Enjoyment_2]

the only question I have here is "Why didn't you ask?"
This system is the most flawed change I've ever seen from w8. You guys really don't know your playerbase.
when you implement something like "8-hour windows for 20-mins ramming" there is no way it brings thought like "Oh, new rules? we need to adapt to it and use it in a way they thought". NO WAY.
And I bet most of the factions were spending the day (it needs 5 mins in reality, but let's say it was harder this time (no)) after you posted it in the creation of "how will we abuse this new siege-mechanics". And obviously it leads to "how not allow enemies to get to your core in 8 hours" and "how to distract enemies for 20 mins while the ram is drying".
Literally NOONE will even say a word about "setting up a proper window to bring the proper sieges as devs think we should".

This change is so unrealistically out-of-space.

[reticent]

How about making winter the raiding season, for example by having 2 or even 3 siege windows at 5 day intervals (e.g. start, mid, end of winter).

Everyone knows exactly when everyone else is vulnerable. No need for bot claim inspectors. Because there is no ambiguity, you know when you need to prepare archery towers and make contingencies well in advance. Doing this for a few days every two-month period is more bearable than every two weeks. Something for large factions to care about in winter. And another reason to hate the season for everyone.

Winter could be the time of turmoil and change.

The bonus is that martial players have to be concerned about both defense and offense at the same time, while peaceful players only about the defense. Meaning that a player's aggressiveness is kept in check by the fact that he himself is vulnerable to raiding at the exact same timeframe. For larger faction I envision this turning into a kind of brinkmanship, where it's dangerous to go on an all in offense with your strongest fighters, because then your own hearth is vulnerable. And on the flipside, a siege can be turned around by forcing enemies to hearth back to defend their assets.

[snapko]

the only question I have here is "Why didn't you ask?"
This system is the most flawed change I've ever seen from w8. You guys really don't know your playerbase.
when you implement something like "8-hour windows for 20-mins ramming" there is no way it brings thought like "Oh, new rules? we need to adapt to it and use it in a way they thought". NO WAY.
And I bet most of the factions were spending the day (it needs 5 mins in reality, but let's say it was harder this time (no)) after you posted it in the creation of "how will we abuse this new siege-mechanics". And obviously it leads to "how not allow enemies to get to your core in 8 hours" and "how to distract enemies for 20 mins while the ram is drying".
Literally NOONE will even say a word about "setting up a proper window to bring the proper sieges as devs think we should".

This change is so unrealistically out-of-space.

This is not entirely true tho, discussions about windowed sieges were brought up on streams alot and there are multiple suggestion threads and posts about it.

Any mechanic in game will be prone to abuse and players will try to find meta way to approach things. This is inevitable.

[Avu]

Guess Jorb and Loftar decided 100 people online were too many and action needed to be taken.

How about you spend some time developing changes on reducing the impact of raids once they break through the walls (total obliteration of anything of value in a base currently) instead of focusing on the when and how the breaking in occurs. Perhaps then people won't be so polarized about it (raiders [all 10 of them] with a hard-on at the idea of the carnage and defenders seriously considering if its even worth playing). It's not like it's been repeatedly been suggested ever since we got walls. Was it 10 years ago? But that would mean too much work and who wants to work eh. Carry on.